President Bush commuted 'Scooter' Libby's sentence

[Edi]

Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring. Let's take a look at what Bush and his government have been doing during the past six years:

• started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
• illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
• illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
• illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
• torture of detainees

Just for starters. They've also ignored subpoenas from Congress on a number of matters and the fact that the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce those and investigate criminal activities including those by the executive branch, has not done it due to being headed by one of the criminals in question, does not make the actions of the administration any less illegal. So, yes, they are criminals. But it's funny how no matter what the Bush White House does, no matter how illegal, there are always people standing up for them and attacking anyone who criticizes them directly and has the balls to tell the truth without sugarcoating it and trying to make it seem less than it was.

Libby was convicted not because he could not remember, but becasue it was determined during the criminal investigation that he had in fact LIED instead of just forgetting, and thus he had perjured himself. What's even more appalling about this commuting of the service is that it's the supposedly tough on crime Republicans who are defending AFTER they themselves passed legislation that toughened penalties on precisely this sort of thing. The President who had no problem signing death warrants for mentally deficient people things that 30 months of prison is "too harsh" for one of his stooges is beyond the pale with the hypocrisy.

Your governmental system is rotten to the core and currently run by criminals. If you have a counterargument to those facts that doesn't hinge on lack of enforcement, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[capnq]

Lazy_Perfectionist said: While listening to talk radio I've heard a lot of opinions on commutation versus pardons, and a lot of misinformation.

Talk radio is a horrible source for forming an opinion on anything. The signal-to-noise ratio is atrocious.

Libby was a scapegoat, thrown to the wolves to deflect attention from the real culprit.

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring.

So in other words Edi, no, Bush has not been convicted of any crimes.

[Atrocities]

Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion. Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.

* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?

* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.

* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?

* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point. They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression. And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.

* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, no offense to you, but I'm yet to meet a liberal who wants terrorist to go free. What we want is for America to endure and survive and the laws to be upheld. Saying liberals want to embrace terrorist is fox news talking points and this adminstration's propaganda nonsense.

Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. It just makes it a well known lie.

Bill Clinton may or may not be a criminal, but lying about sex is nothing compared to the corruption and criminal behavior of this administration. make no mistake history will record Bush's administration as the one that brought an end to the American Century through mismanagement, incompetence and arrogance.

I don't know if you read this or not, but before you go any further atrocities, read this column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

[Edi]

Atrocities said:
Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion.

Right. This here is where the gloves come off. You will either immediately provide evidence that I have in any way supported or condoned terrorist acts against the US or its citizens, or you will retract that accusation and apologize. Else you can expect this thread to get VERY unpleasant.

For the record, I do not hate America. I've got a fair few American friends I've gotten to know over the last few years over the net, so I can actually differentiate between the ordinary US citizens and the US government. Your inability to make that same distinction is not my problem, it's yours, and every time you bring it up, I'm going to shove it up your backside.

As far as the American government is concerned, here's how it goes: For the Bush administration, characterizing my opinion as utter contempt is putting it charitably. Congress, they're a bunch of spineless morons for the most part, given the track record from the past few years. They've been largely irrelevant and have generally bent over for the White House in almost every conceivable way in the arena of politics.

Atrocities said:
Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.

There are so many things wrong with that that it's hard to know where to begin. The problem with the people detained in Guantanamo is that they are not being really accused of anything. They're just being held behind bars without any access to due process, and any information they might have had is so badly outdated by now it's actually worse than useless. The only accusation against them so far that I've heard is that they are "enemy combatants", whatever that means, and Bush's own military commissions had to rule, on the basis of the recent laws, that they do not have jurisdiction. If they were guilty of the things they are accused of, the government should be able to bring charges like conspiracy to commit murder or other similar things against them, put them on trial and lock them away. Yet they refuse to do so. The only logical explanation for that is that they have no case. Ergo, the detainees should be returned to their home countries.

As far as "the majority of Americans who were not polled", your inability to understand statistical methods is again not my problem. A sample size of one or two thousand when selected randomly across the population of the US and accounting for certain factors so that it isn't biased, is actually a viable method and the results reliable. I'm not a statistician myself, but I know people who are and I've seen them rip the kind of laughably ignorant statements like you made here to shreds in excruciating detail.

Atrocities said:
* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?

If you actually went back and read the UN resolutions and other relevant documents related to that, you would know that's a load of manure. As far as the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. goes, does the concept of proportionate response mean anything to you? By your logic, if anyone had the means to retaliate for American offenses against their nation, they would be completely justified in wiping your country out to the last man, woman and child. Your personal attack on Clinton is irrelevant, since Clinton actually managed to contain Saddam with minimal bloodshed and reduced him to complete irrelevance except as somebody who was good for a news headline or two when he amped up the bluster.

Atrocities said:
* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.

Actually, you're again repeating flat out lies you've been fed. Nobody in the US media even tried to really investigate the wiretapping issue until it became to big to ignore and even after that it was half-hearted at best so as not to offend the Washington elite and the White House in particular. Your ridiculous statement about "most Americans didn't feel like it was" is completely irrelevant. The law of your land says that if the President wants to wiretap American citizens, he needs a warrant from the courts, even if it happens to be the secret FISA court, which has been very lenient with its requirements for evidence in the past. Yet Bush did not do that and when he was caught, he admitted to it in public and vowed he would continue to ignore the law. His lawbreaking is a matter of established fact, both by evidence and his own admission and your feeble flailing about with apologist justifications is just a lot of hot air.

Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?

So because your opponents are barbarians, you have carte blanche to be just as bad? Weren't you supposed to have the moral high ground? Here's a hint: When you have to justify your own actions by pointing out the despicable actions of bloody-handed, murderous fanatics, you are well on your way to becoming what you claim to oppose.

Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point.

You will point out where I said they were automatically innocent or you will retract that strawman argument. What I said was that they have been denied due process, i.e. the opportunity to have the matter of their guilt or innocence established in a court of law. Unless I have been fed lies, your court system should recognize the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Or is that too onerous a standard of conduct for the US?

Atrocities said:
They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression.

Then it should not be too hard to bring them up on criminal charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and various other things, hold a trial and put them behind bars nice and proper, right? So why is that not happening? The most logical explanation is that there is no case for what the government is claiming about them even if they have committed lesser crimes than the ones that supposedly justify their current detainment.

Atrocities said:
And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.

You will again point out where I said they were automatically innocent rather than having had their due process rights denied, or you can go jump off a cliff.

Atrocities said:
* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?

So, the pictures of detainees being tortured in Abu Ghraib were not real and none of it happened? The official findings that torture had been committed are all figments of imagination? The actual, officially confirmed homicides of detainees by American soldiers and intelligence personnel did not happen either? You're just sinking lower and lower, and your user name seems to have been well chosen since you seem to support the idea that if your enemy is a murderous fanatic scumbag, anything and everything you do to him is justified. I happen to have higher ethical standards than that. See the point above about becoming what you claim to oppose.

As far as your vice president's defense of "enhanced interrogation methods", up to and including waterboarding and so forth, you should read some of the Nuremberg trial transcripts. The arguments from the Bush administration are almost word for word the same as those used by German soldiers of the Wehrmacht and SS and who were, on the basis of those arguments and their actions, sentenced to prison or death for war crimes. THAT is what you are defending here and it is all a matter of officially recorded, INDISPUTABLE FACT.

Fortunately, I'm not the one who has to live with having a government like that. The current administration has stained your country's reputation for decades to come and there is no way you are going to get it rehabilitated within my lifetime, given the course that is now being pursued.

Your inability to see plain facts because you prefer ready-made soundbites about simultaneously evil and naive, all-powerful but ineffective liberals is not my concern. I deal with facts and observations and the logical conclusions that can be derived from them instead of fantasies, and if you want to continue down the path you took with your last post, I'm game for it. I tend to give far better than I get in this sort of exchanges and I don't even need to convince you, really. All I need to do is show your arguments for what they are and let the spectators draw their own conclusions. Those generally won't be very flattering towards you.

[Atrocities]

Edi you lost the high ground again.

Edi, I made an observation based upon your comments that you seem to feel that the Terrorists are the real victims and that no matter what any one may say, they are all innocent because Bush is a bad man. I did not say nor did I mean to infer in any way that you condone them and what they do. I just made an observation based upon the tone of your comments that you appear to feel that they are being treated unfairly and would rather support the cause of setting them free because it goes against Bush. That is just an observation and my own opinion. If you feel I am wrong in my observation then say so, there really is no need to make threats. If you will recall, we have covered this ground before. It would seem apparent based upon how you worded your response that you are interested in forcing your point of view at all cost rather than debating on the merits of the topic. Instead of opting to debate you chose to attack, ridicule, and threaten. This is often the case with many liberals as they know that they cannot defend the undependable so they more often than not viciously attack any who do not share their opinion or views. This makes discussion and open debate with them somewhat problematic since they often refuse to compromise and often elect to hold true to facts even when they are proven to be inaccurate. When one side refuses to be open to other points of view and opts to attack those who don't share their views, well then that is not debate Edi, that is a one sided narrow view of the topic and issues at hand and it is counter productive to an open and free forum discussion.

I would hate to think that you are attempting to scare away anyone who does not agree with you by threatening them. Without trying to offend you, I must point out that you insult but do not apologize yet threaten if an apology is not given to you when insulted. This weakens you and your position and gives casual readers the impression that you are not an open minded person willing to debate but rather a narrow minded zealot who only wishes to engage in argument, name calling, and threatening behavior. I know that you are a skilled and gifted when it comes to debate and enjoy our little back and forth with much anticipation, but even you must concede that making threats is counter productive and does more harm than good. So which is it going to be Edi, are we going to have an open minded debate, or a flame war? I would prefer you chose debate because it is far more challenging than throwing insults back and forth at each and as a rule, I won't participate in a flame war.

God only knows how much time you spent typing what can only be viewed as a manifesto regarding your point of view on this topic. You make some good arguments and I would enjoy responding to those but am fearful given the threatening nature of your last post.

You lost the high ground Edi when you started to make threats. Making an observation that you are acting as an advocate against the injustices you feel have been visited upon the Terrorists isn't calling you a terrorist. I would never deliberately insult you in that way. I hope that you know this and can take a step back and revisit my comment and take the meaning for which it was meant and not defer from it that I am calling you a terrorist.

Finally, I would rather read your responses without all the implied name calling, threats, and bad language, as I do enjoy very much our debates.

EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors.

[Atrocities]

Azselendor said:
Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. It just makes it a well known lie.

I don't know if you read this or not, but before you go any further atrocities, read this column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Repeating the lie seems to work well for the liberals. They enjoy calling truth a lie while promoting their own lie as truth. This is politics.

I don't consider msnbc a valid news source given their strong propensity toward unprofessional conduct.

[Azselendor]

And twisting words around to zing someone doesn't work either. The sad fact of reality is that Bush did indeed commit crimes and placed himself outside the laws he established. His own sentencing policy has been violated by his own actions http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/

You know, the last time a politician screwed up this badly, their party lost control of the government for 20 years. Seeing how Clinton's screwup only took America 6 years to get over...

[Atrocities]

Azselendor said:
And twisting words around to zing someone doesn't work either. The sad fact of reality is that Bush did indeed commit crimes and placed himself outside the laws he established. His own sentencing policy has been violated by his own actions http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/

You know, the last time a politician screwed up this badly, their party lost control of the government for 20 years. Seeing how Clinton's screwup only took America 6 years to get over...

If he has committed any convictable crimes then he should be charged in a court of law and prosecuted. Let the law deal with him and let the people pass legal judgment based upon true evidence and not just some far left propaganda bent upon character assassination and nothing more.