George W. Bush: Judge, Jury and Sentence Commuter

Is anyone else out there appalled at George Bush’s recent pardoning of Scooter Libby?

I know this is a Web marketing blog, and most business consultants will tell you not to talk politics or religion in business, but this is criminal. There’s something rotten in Denmark.

Bush says, "I respect the jury’s verdict (not!), but I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." Is that because it should be Mr. Cheney, or even Mr. Bush who’s responsible for the crimes that Scooter has been convicted of?

Thirty months in jail–less than three years–seems pretty lenient for a man who outed a CIA operative in a time when the White House has us all on an orange terror alert or worse. The only possible explanation is that this is Scooter’s reward for taking the heat that should be on his bosses.

And shame on any republican who backs W on this. Here’s my test that I use to make sure I’m not leaning too far left or too far right: if it was the other side who was in hot water, what would my feelings be? In other words–to all the conservatives who actually believe a full pardon is in order–what would you have said if "Slick Willie" Clinton did the same? Would you commend him for "doing the right thing," as House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri did?

Whether you’re democrat, republican or independent, we should all be embarrassed by the way our current administration ignores the rule of law.

Rich Brooks
Pissed Off (duh)

Bookmark and Share
GET MARKETING ADVICE DAILY!
  • reader

    You might disagree with Bush, but it's the President's constitutional right to pardon and commute (Bush commuted the Libby's sentence, he didn't pardon Libby conviction). Also, the 2 1/2 sentence was for lying under oath, not outing Joe Wilson's wife.

    Clinton was impeached by the House for exactly the same thing, lying under oath. Do you think Clinton should have also gone to jail for that offence? If you do then you are keeping your balance, but if you think Libby should go to jail for lying but not Clinton, then you are being hypocritical.

  • reader

    You might disagree with Bush, but it's the President's constitutional right to pardon and commute (Bush commuted the Libby's sentence, he didn't pardon Libby conviction). Also, the 2 1/2 sentence was for lying under oath, not outing Joe Wilson's wife.

    Clinton was impeached by the House for exactly the same thing, lying under oath. Do you think Clinton should have also gone to jail for that offence? If you do then you are keeping your balance, but if you think Libby should go to jail for lying but not Clinton, then you are being hypocritical.

  • http://judyrodman.blogspot.com Judy Rodman

    Ooooh yeah… I just have to ask what strange justice is it that a young foolish girl celebrity, Paris Hilton goes to jail and a fully adult and world-wise politician… Scooter Libby does not… ??? Unfortunately, I bet you get comments along party lines. But I will say out loud, this is the worst and most damaging president this beautiful country has ever had.

    There, I said it.

  • http://judyrodman.blogspot.com Judy Rodman

    Ooooh yeah… I just have to ask what strange justice is it that a young foolish girl celebrity, Paris Hilton goes to jail and a fully adult and world-wise politician… Scooter Libby does not… ??? Unfortunately, I bet you get comments along party lines. But I will say out loud, this is the worst and most damaging president this beautiful country has ever had.

    There, I said it.

  • http://www.flyteblog.com Rich Brooks

    "Reader",

    Libby outed a CIA operative in a politically motivated retribution because her husband spoke out against the administration's policies.

    Clinton cheated on his wife.

    I'm not defending either action, but which do you think is more serious from a legal standpoint? Which should be punished with jail time?

  • http://www.flyteblog.com Rich Brooks

    "Reader",

    Libby outed a CIA operative in a politically motivated retribution because her husband spoke out against the administration's policies.

    Clinton cheated on his wife.

    I'm not defending either action, but which do you think is more serious from a legal standpoint? Which should be punished with jail time?

  • http://lorwidmer.blogspot.com Lori

    It pisses me off no end.

    I agree with the poster above – this president is the worst and most damaging.

    It's clear to me that this was a move to protect the fall guy. The order came from above, and since neither of those who are guilty will ever admit to it, they'll simply pardon him. No harm, no foul, right? Wrong. A crime was committed – the man compromised national security and the life of an agent and that agent's family. Clinton lied under oath, but about having sex with a girl. Who cares? Why the hell were they investigating the very thing they themselves do?

    This was a much more serious offense. And I'm frothed that the dude walks.

  • http://lorwidmer.blogspot.com Lori

    It pisses me off no end.

    I agree with the poster above – this president is the worst and most damaging.

    It's clear to me that this was a move to protect the fall guy. The order came from above, and since neither of those who are guilty will ever admit to it, they'll simply pardon him. No harm, no foul, right? Wrong. A crime was committed – the man compromised national security and the life of an agent and that agent's family. Clinton lied under oath, but about having sex with a girl. Who cares? Why the hell were they investigating the very thing they themselves do?

    This was a much more serious offense. And I'm frothed that the dude walks.

  • Reader

    My point was that Libby was not on trial outing Valerie Plame, he was convicted of four other charges related to lying under oath and to investigators — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby

    Is it reasonable to lock someone up for 2 1/2 years for lying? Seems a little heavy-handed, in comparison, Clinton who also lied under oath and to investigators was never sent to jail. If the sentence was for revealing a CIA agent's identity, then that would be more than fair — in fact it should be longer. But just to be clear, it is widely believed (as reported by NYT) that Richard Armitage that was the initial and primary source for Novak's column that outed Plame — not Libby.

    And as much as I disagree with Clinton for pardoning terrorists and corrupt friends in his final days – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy – it was still his right to do so.

    Anyways, enough on politics, I want to read more about online Marketing.

  • Reader

    My point was that Libby was not on trial outing Valerie Plame, he was convicted of four other charges related to lying under oath and to investigators — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby

    Is it reasonable to lock someone up for 2 1/2 years for lying? Seems a little heavy-handed, in comparison, Clinton who also lied under oath and to investigators was never sent to jail. If the sentence was for revealing a CIA agent's identity, then that would be more than fair — in fact it should be longer. But just to be clear, it is widely believed (as reported by NYT) that Richard Armitage that was the initial and primary source for Novak's column that outed Plame — not Libby.

    And as much as I disagree with Clinton for pardoning terrorists and corrupt friends in his final days – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy – it was still his right to do so.

    Anyways, enough on politics, I want to read more about online Marketing.

  • Bill

    I'm not happy either with the President's action in commuting Libby's sentence. But, in the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that Libby was NOT convicted for outing a CIA operative, but rather for perjury, obstructing a grand jury and making false statements to federal agents. You can read the NYT article on this topic at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06cnd-libby.html?ex=1188795600&en=1963fd2ac8d8931e&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNlibbytrial

  • Bill

    I'm not happy either with the President's action in commuting Libby's sentence. But, in the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that Libby was NOT convicted for outing a CIA operative, but rather for perjury, obstructing a grand jury and making false statements to federal agents. You can read the NYT article on this topic at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06cnd-libby.html?ex=1188795600&en=1963fd2ac8d8931e&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNlibbytrial

  • Wayne

    Libby was not the leaker and no one has yet established that the "outing" of Plame was even a crime.

    I am actually far more appalled that an unaccountable special prosecutor went on a political fishing expedition when he already knew at the beginning of the investigation that Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State, was the leaker.

    Why wasn't Armitage prosecuted or Novak who published her name?

    Libby may have tried to be too cute in his testimony but it was all political rubbish from the beginning.

  • Wayne

    Libby was not the leaker and no one has yet established that the "outing" of Plame was even a crime.

    I am actually far more appalled that an unaccountable special prosecutor went on a political fishing expedition when he already knew at the beginning of the investigation that Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State, was the leaker.

    Why wasn't Armitage prosecuted or Novak who published her name?

    Libby may have tried to be too cute in his testimony but it was all political rubbish from the beginning.

  • http://www.jonathanbraden.com Jonathan

    My political saber is a little rusty these days, as I am just too disturbed by the news to keep up anymore, but I generally agree with Judy above that this president has been nothing short of a nightmare.

    I applaud Rich for having the confidence to pipe up about such a hot topic in such a public fashion! It was that same type of confidence and spirit that enabled a group to put aside their public reputations and write the recipe for this great nation 231 years ago.

    I'm counting down the moments until King George III, I mean, George Dubya, is out of office.

  • http://www.jonathanbraden.com Jonathan

    My political saber is a little rusty these days, as I am just too disturbed by the news to keep up anymore, but I generally agree with Judy above that this president has been nothing short of a nightmare.

    I applaud Rich for having the confidence to pipe up about such a hot topic in such a public fashion! It was that same type of confidence and spirit that enabled a group to put aside their public reputations and write the recipe for this great nation 231 years ago.

    I'm counting down the moments until King George III, I mean, George Dubya, is out of office.

Related posts:

  1. Barbara Bush Children’s Hospital on Facebook
  2. Bush No Longer a Miserable Failure, Claims Google
  3. National Leadership Award from Congressman Tom Reynolds
  4. Verizon’s War on Free Speech
  5. Senator Susan Collins and Net Neutrality