Even before commuting Libby...

[boutons_]

Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure

RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/)
Published: Thursday March 16, 2006

Print This (javascript:document.getElementById() | Email This (http://rawstory.com/email_story.php?sid=1656)A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.

A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.

Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.

=========
This is old news, and so stay tuned for the next poll when anti-dubya, anti-dickhead %ages will be certainly worse, with the Libby commutation, and continuing failure of the surge to stabilize even Bagdad, and the huge rise in US deaths.


Remember, the Army itself has said it's breaking point is April 08.

dubya and dickhead have lied their way into Iraq, broke Iraq, can't fix it, and have lost Iraq to violence and terrorism. US the can't even get its new $700M (surely to overrun by at least 100%) embassy of imperialistic occupation built.

[boutons_]

Libby was in a "perjury trap".

He lied to protect dubya, dickhead and others.

If he didn't lie, he would had to implicate dubya, dickhead, and others.

Commuted and on appeal, he's impervious to further Congressional hearings until the appeal is complete.

If pardoned, he will be fair game. iow, Libby's legal game has been carefully crafted to minimize damage to Libby and protect dubya and dickhead until they are out of office.

Bush was badass executioner and non-pardoner as governor of TX, and his federal DoJ has been badass enforcing and increasing the harshest penalties under extremely nasty sentencing guidelines.

But when it came time to protect his own guilty ass, dubya short-circuited all DoJ commutation legal procedures and commuted Libby in an overnight eye-blink. Libby's 30 months was not "too harsh", it was at the low-end of dubya's DoJ sentencing guidelines.

======================

July 8, 2007

For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy

By ADAM LIPTAK

Until he commuted the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. on Monday, President Bush had said almost nothing about his philosophy in granting clemency while at the White House.

As governor of Texas, though, Mr. Bush discussed and applied a consistent and narrow standard when deciding whether to issue pardons and commutations. And that standard appears to be at odds with his decision in the Libby case.

Mr. Bush explained his clemency philosophy in Texas in his 1999 memoir, “A Charge to Keep.”

“In every case,” he wrote, “I would ask: Is there any doubt about this individual’s guilt or innocence? And, have the courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in this case?”

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

“As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence,” said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas who has represented death-row inmates.

“The exercise of the commutation power in Libby,” Professor Steiker continued, “represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach.”

In the six years that George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a state that executes more people than any other, he commuted a single death sentence and allowed 152 executions to go forward. He also pardoned 20 people charged with lesser crimes, said Maria Ramirez, the state’s clemency administrator. That was fewer than any Texas governor since the 1940s.

As president, Mr. Bush has commuted three sentences in addition to Mr. Libby’s and denied more than 4,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the pardon lawyer at the Justice Department for most of the 1990s. He has also issued 113 pardons and denied more than 1,000 requests. “His grant rate is very low compared to other presidents’,” she said.

In commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, Mr. Bush said he had found it excessive. If Mr. Bush employed a similar calculus in Texas capital cases, he did not say so. Even in cases involving juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people, Mr. Bush allowed executions to proceed, saying that he was satisfied of the inmates’ guilt and that they had received a fair hearing.

The United States Supreme Court has since barred the execution of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Jeanie Mamo, a White House spokesman, said on Saturday that Mr. Bush “has been very careful and deliberative in the use of his pardon powers.”

“The president commuted — not a pardon — the sentence of Mr. Libby based on thoughtful and deliberate reasoning and acted within the lawful authority granted to him under the Constitution, which he has used very sparingly,” Ms. Mamo said. “As the president has said, he respects the jury’s verdict and he felt the punishments that the judge determined were adequate which included a $250,000 fine, two years probation and a felony conviction. However, in this case, the president considered the 30-month jail sentence for Mr. Libby to be excessive.”As governor, Mr. Bush did not issue formal statements giving reasons for granting or denying clemency. But in his memoir, Mr. Bush wrote that he considered clemency requests carefully.

“For every death penalty case,” he wrote, “they brief me thoroughly, review the arguments made by the prosecution and the defense, raise any doubts or problems or questions.”

Mr. Bush made many of his decisions in Texas based on case summaries prepared by his legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general of the United States. The 57 summaries were examined in a 2003 article by Alan Berlow in The Atlantic Monthly. Mr. Berlow found that they were relatively brief, often dwelt on the details of the crime and sometimes omitted information that lawyers for the inmates said was crucial. Mr. Bush apparently rarely reviewed the inmates’ actual clemency petitions.

In a 1998 interview with The Austin American-Statesman, Mr. Bush said the Texas capital justice system, including its clemency process, was working well.

“All I can tell you,” he said, “is that for the four years I’ve been governor, I am confident we have not executed an innocent person, and I’m confident that the system has worked to make sure there is full access to the courts.”

Mr. Bush did commute one death sentence, that of Henry Lee Lucas, who, though convicted of several other murders, had falsely confessed to the crime that sent him to death row.

He also pardoned Roy Criner, who was serving a 99-year sentence for rape, after Mr. Criner was cleared by DNA evidence in 2000.

Mr. Bush’s attitude toward clemency may have been influenced by a pardon early in his governorship. In 1995, he pardoned a man with an eight-year-old conviction on his record for marijuana possession so that he could work as a constable. A few months later, the man was arrested for stealing cocaine from a police station.

But most of the public scrutiny of Mr. Bush’s attitude toward clemency concerned the capital cases that reached him.

There are significant differences, of course, between those cases and the obstruction of justice and perjury charges on which Mr. Libby was convicted.

In capital cases, juries decide if the defendant is to live or die, while a federal judge, following federal sentencing guidelines, sentenced Mr. Libby. The respect for a jury’s judgment that Mr. Bush expressed in the Libby case may have led him to defer to the death sentences recommended by Texas juries.

Mr. Bush’s power to grant clemency in Texas was also more limited than the absolute power that presidents have where federal crimes are concerned. As governor, he could issue a pardon or commute a sentence only after the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a recommendation that he do so.

But the 18 members of the board were appointed by the governor, and by the end of his governorship Mr. Bush had appointed every member. Mr. Bush also had the power to grant a 30-day reprieve at any time.

Austin D. Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College and author of “Mercy on Trial,” a study of executive clemency, said it was hard to reconcile Mr. Bush’s actions as governor with the reasons he cited in the Libby matter.

“The grounds he offered for commuting Libby’s sentence were equity — that the sentence was out of line with other sentences — or compassion,” Professor Sarat said. “Those two grounds seem so out of character with anything Bush had ever said or done in the area of clemency that it’s as if he has become a different person.”

In addition to possible innocence, as governor Mr. Bush said he was focused on the adequacy of the legal proceedings. Here, too, however, he took a relatively narrow view.

In 2000, Mr. Bush spoke to reporters about the execution of Gary Graham, whose court-appointed lawyer performed poorly at trial. The prosecution’s case relied mostly on the testimony of a single witness who said she saw Mr. Graham from 30 to 40 feet away through her car windshield. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Graham, who was 17 at the time, to the killing.

“This is a responsibility I take very seriously,” Mr. Bush said in a grave tone, according to news reports, “because the final determination of innocence or guilt is among the most profound and serious decisions a person can make.”

Five of the 18 members of the state parole board voted for clemency for Mr. Graham. A former member of the board, Paddy Lann Burwell, said in an interview on Friday that the board took pains to insulate Mr. Bush from the decision. “We took a straw vote,” he said, “and I was told that if the vote looks really close it will look bad.”

Mr. Burwell, who was appointed to the board by Mr. Bush, voted for clemency. “He didn’t commit the crime we executed him for,” Mr. Burwell said of Mr. Graham. As for Mr. Bush, “I thought he was harder on crime than he needed to be,” Mr. Burwell said.

In his memoir, Mr. Bush wrote about agonizing over the case of Karla Faye Tucker, who in 1998 became the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War. Ms. Tucker, who was convicted in the ax murders of two people during a robbery in 1983, had become a born-again Christian while in prison, and her case drew support from across the political spectrum. Mr. Bush described feeling “like a huge piece of concrete was crushing me” as he waited with aides for Ms. Tucker’s execution. It was, he said, “the longest 20 minutes of my tenure as governor.”

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, “Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

================

Libby's commutation will undoubtedly push dubya's rating further down the toilet, and embolden Congress on the war and impeachment.

dubya's long-term legacy will be no different from, just as the legacy of that other impeachable Repug Nixon remains in the toilet.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This should be fun. Now that Pandora's box was opened with impeachment charges against Clinton, it's turned into a tit for tat type deal.

Can't wait to watch the next 10 presidents or so get impeached or censured, or at least have those charges brought up against them.

We're becoming more like France every damn day.

[Yonivore]

This should be fun. Now that Pandora's box was opened with impeachment charges against Clinton, it's turned into a tit for tat type deal.

Can't wait to watch the next 10 presidents or so get impeached or censured, or at least have those charges brought up against them.

We're becoming more like France every damn day.
Exactly what would the articles of impeachment contain?

[Wild Cobra]

Why cannot the liberals grow up and stop being childish about this?

Libby was in a "perjury trap".
I agree with that.

He lied to protect dubya, dickhead and others.
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that to be true. What is it?

If he didn't lie, he would had to implicate dubya, dickhead, and others.
If you know that, why didn't you testify? Maybe we should have you arrested for obstruction of justice?

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt.
He also expressed nothing saying he was convinced he was guilty!

He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.
Yes, because he wasn't a danger to anyone, and the courts decided he would have to appeal while in jail!

Libby's commutation will undoubtedly push dubya's rating further down the toilet, and embolden Congress on the war and impeachment.
If you ask me, I'll bet it stays even +/- a little. Democrats, liberals, and progressives will dislike him more. Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and scholars of the constitution will like him more.

I think it will balance out.

[boutons_]

"Exactly what would the articles of impeachment contain?"

The don't have to contain anything you'd like. Congress can do anything it votes to do, impeach for any old reason, just like dubya can commute/pardon for any old reason.

The impeachment could and would cover the pre-war intelligence lies, about which there is plenty of doubt. There will be insiders, under subpoena and under pain of conviction seen with Libby's case, in the WH and CIA to show how dickhead suppressed and classified the doubts that were at very least as strong as dichhead's cherry picked intelligence, which is exactly how Libby's lying came about, to hide dickhead's campaign to impugn and slime Joe Wilson for saying the yellowcake was bullshit, and for throwing wider doubts on dickhead's rationale for the war.

My bet is also that dickhead's National Energy Policy, which to this day has remained secret, with the oilcos and energycos in 2001, prior to 9/11, will have had invading Iraq for oil as one of the topics, perhaps the main topic. The policy should also be exposed, including subpoena of the attendees. Grabbing Iraqi oil was clearly part of dickhead's energy policy.

[peewee's lovechild]

Why cannot the liberals grow up and stop being childish about this?

And, the Conservatives weren't being childish about Clinton lying about getting a blow job??

Conservatives are fucking idiotic hypocrites.

Clinton got a blow job and it was oh-so-immoral. They exposed it because they were on the moral highground. But, then Gingrich got caught as well as that fucker who replaced him as Speaker of The House (don't remember his name right now).

As a matter of fact, Republicans/Conservatives have proven to be extremely immoral, for the most part. Betty Ford, a drunk (Gerald couldn't control her). Nancy Reagan, fucked Fran Sinatra (allegedly, but it more than likely happened). George Bush, Sr., constant liar. George Bush, Jr., more of the same. He was a coke-head, and an alchoholic (a trait that he's passed down to his daughters). He's probably still a coke-head and an alchoholic, that would explain some of his decision making. He pushes for war, but he hid from the Vietnam War. He talks about Americans having to sacrifice, but his daughters have never served in the armed forces. But, he's also wrestled political control from the Legislative Branch and he has placed conservative cronies in the Supreme Court to help push his agenda.

Conservatives claim that they believe in Jesus and live by his teachings, but they forget about "turn the other cheek", "love thy brother", "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", "only the meek shall inherit the kingdom of god", etc.

They are all a bunch of hypocrites.

So, when the "Liberals" try condemn the hypocritical actions of conservatives you say that they are being "childish"?

You need to shut up right now.

[Wild Cobra]

And, the Conservatives weren't being childish about Clinton lying about getting a blow job??

I think if you ask conservatives, most didn't make more of that than acting unpresidential. All this started with the allegations and hearings from a sexual harasment charge that was found warranted!



Conservatives are fucking idiotic hypocrites.

We all are to some degree on some subjects. Myself, I don't care about the losers private life.



Clinton got a blow job and it was oh-so-immoral. They exposed it because they were on the moral highground. But, then Gingrich got caught as well as that fucker who replaced him as Speaker of The House (don't remember his name right now).

Look at how republicans respond to thir own under such situations. Gingrich isn't as loved as he used to be. What hypocracy?



As a matter of fact, Republicans/Conservatives have proven to be extremely immoral, for the most part. Betty Ford, a drunk (Gerald couldn't control her).

Attacking out of spite, or do you believe everyone should be perfect?


Nancy Reagan, fucked Fran Sinatra (allegedly, but it more than likely happened).

Thyere is one problem with stinkin liberals. They see conservatives as guilty until proven innocent... Damn traitors to the constitution!


George Bush, Sr., constant liar.

Really? Not to my knowledge.


George Bush, Jr., more of the same. He was a coke-head, and an alchoholic (a trait that he's passed down to his daughters).
Alcoholic yes, coke-head? Let's see, a single source that nobody backs up. Could that just be a rumor that liberals love to repeat?

It's just another leftist political lie. Can't liberals see that?


He's probably still a coke-head and an alchoholic, that would explain some of his decision making.
No, but I am definitely wondering about you.


He pushes for war, but he hid from the Vietnam War.
He didn't hide. He made a choice. If he failed pilots training, he would have been on the front lines!


He talks about Americans having to sacrifice, but his daughters have never served in the armed forces.
Should they? Why? My God, What a twisted set of rational you have.


But, he's also wrestled political control from the Legislative Branch and he has placed conservative cronies in the Supreme Court to help push his agenda.

Read the constitution lately? I have seen nothing of the kind. He has some pretty broad powers.

I suggest you start researching things yourself before believing the leftist lies.



Conservatives claim that they believe in Jesus and live by his teachings, but they forget about "turn the other cheek", "love thy brother", "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", "only the meek shall inherit the kingdom of god", etc.

They are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Those are not the only teachings, in fact, Jesus has told his disciples to carry knives on some roads because they could be attacked.

The teachings are time/place/manner, like most things in life.



So, when the "Liberals" try condemn the hypocritical actions of conservatives you say that they are being "childish"?

Yes. Children have limited wisdom. When you gain some more wisdom and look back, you will understand.



You need to shut up right now.

LOL... Just showing your 'childishness'

[peewee's lovechild]

I think if you ask conservatives, most didn't make more of that than acting unpresidential. All this started with the allegations and hearings from a sexual harasment charge that was found warranted!

Haven't conservatives been bitching about how Libby didn't really commit a crime. That he may have lied and that the punishment for that may have been too harsh. Oh, sorry, he may have "misspoken" (conservatives don't tell lies). But, they were all ready to impeach Clinton for the exact same reason?

Come on now, how hypocritical is that?


We all are to some degree on some subjects. Myself, I don't care about the losers private life.

I don't either, but the Conservatives made a big stink about Clinton's personal life (they still do, and they'll go right back to it should Hillary be nominated). However, Bush's personal life seems to be off limits.

Once again, hypocritical.


Look at how republicans respond to thir own under such situations. Gingrich isn't as loved as he used to be. What hypocracy?

Last I heard, several are waiting and hoping that he'll run for president.


Attacking out of spite, or do you believe everyone should be perfect?

No, I don't expect perfection out of anybody . . . even Presidents. But, how dare he command other's children into harms way when he doesn't do it himself. While other citizens' children are dying in Iraq, his little girls are traveling and getting shit faced . . . at our expense.

Such great leadership from the first family.



Thyere is one problem with stinkin liberals. They see conservatives as guilty until proven innocent... Damn traitors to the constitution!

You are a moron. I'm not a liberal or a conservative (especially conservative). I tend to be a little of both. I just hate hypocrisy.


Alcoholic yes, coke-head? Let's see, a single source that nobody backs up. Could that just be a rumor that liberals love to repeat?

I'm sure it was rumored that Kennedy loved his women, Nixon was paranoid, FDR's wife (Elenor) was a lesbian, etc.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I'm sure there's truth to his cocaine addiction. And, the truth is . . . I don't give a shit. I really don't care. What I do care about is that the conservatives look the other way when one of their own has a sordid past, but condemn you to hell when you're on the other side.



It's just another leftist political lie. Can't liberals see that?

Please. You seriously aren't that stupid, are you?


No, but I am definitely wondering about you.

Are you asking if I'm a coke head?

Then ask!!

Then answer would be no, but I am a recovering drug addict.

I have nothing to hide.

Are you going to judge me now.
People of your ilk often do.


He didn't hide. He made a choice. If he failed pilots training, he would have been on the front lines!

Just answer this:

How many days did he spend in service at Vietnam?
And, how long did John Kerry spend in service at Vietnam and surrounding countries during the time of the war?

Can you answer that?


Should they? Why? My God, What a twisted set of rational you have.

So, you're saying that the first family is above serving their country??

That's funny.
You know, the ROYAL FAMILY in England all serve the armed forces at one time or another.

Shit, Prince Harry was on his way to Bagdad until it became too dangerous for his batallion because he was such a target.

But, at least he was WILLING to go.

But, I guess, according to you, the American "First" Family is above all that.


Read the constitution lately? I have seen nothing of the kind. He has some pretty broad powers.

You don't understand anything about how our country was founded. The Founding Fathers hated the English monarchy. The feared a return to monarchy in the colonies. That's why, when they drew up the Constitution, they made sure that the Legislative Branch (Article I) had more power than the Executive (Article II, you now . . . the President and his staff). The least powerful of the branches was the Judicial (Article III) meant only to keep the Legislative Branch in check.

However, the Judicial Branch has progressively become more conservative since the 80s. And, they decided who the President was going to be when we had the Florida fiasco and Al Gore had the popular vote. Bush, returning the favor, has replaced to Justices with two very conservative individuals.

But, to counter your point, the Constitution does not give the Exectuive Branch pretty broad powers.
You are just flat out mistaken.


I suggest you start researching things yourself before believing the leftist lies.

How about if you take a look at the Constitution instead of just regergitating things others have told you to believe.

I have a double B.A. in History and Government.

Try and argue.

What's the background to your education?



Those are not the only teachings, in fact, Jesus has told his disciples to carry knives on some roads because they could be attacked.

Quote the scripture then, if you're so sure.

Show us all where Jesus says that you should carry a knife and defend yourself.

Becuase, that pretty much goes against his "turn the other cheek" and "all who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
Don't turn Jesus into a hypocrite. Be one if you like, but don't turn Jesus into one just to justify what you may believe.


The teachings are time/place/manner, like most things in life.

Once again, quote some scripture.

Give us chapter and verse to back your claims.


Yes. Children have limited wisdom. When you gain some more wisdom and look back, you will understand.

Yea, great.
I have given facts.

And you?


LOL... Just showing your 'childishness'

Yea, I can be childish.
But, I wasn't the one who called out others for being the same.

I was just pointing out how those who call others out for being childish are being quite hypocritical.

[johnsmith]

I have a double B.A. in History and Government.

Try and argue.

What's the background to your education?



:lol :lol

What do you do for a living with those kick ass degrees?

You're a landscaper aren't you?

[peewee's lovechild]

:lol :lol

What do you do for a living with those kick ass degrees?

You're a landscaper aren't you?

I landscape your mother's snatch.

Ooops, that's me being a Liberal Child again.

[johnsmith]

I landscape your mother's snatch.

Ooops, that's me being a Liberal Child again.


:lol
Spoken like a true History Major.

[peewee's lovechild]

:lol
Spoken like a true History Major.

Precisely, and proud.

[Wild Cobra]

Haven't conservatives been bitching about how Libby didn't really commit a crime. That he may have lied and that the punishment for that may have been too harsh. Oh, sorry, he may have "misspoken" (conservatives don't tell lies). But, they were all ready to impeach Clinton for the exact same reason?

Come on now, how hypocritical is that?

What hypocrisy? Besides, I am not aware of any conservatives in the public saying he lied as fact. The belief is that he just didn't keep past facts strait, which happens to all of us.

The question that should be asked is if his misstatements were intentional or not!

President Clinton intentionally lied, period, no argument there!


I don't either, but the Conservatives made a big stink about Clinton's personal life (they still do, and they'll go right back to it should Hillary be nominated). However, Bush's personal life seems to be off limits.

Once again, hypocritical.

Politics as usual. I won't defend those who were as critical over many of the incident as some were. With his extramarital affairs, I won't go past how he disgraced the presidency. I could care less about his personal life, and I believe it should remain personal, until he commits a crime against a woman.


Last I heard, several are waiting and hoping that he'll run for president.

I'm sure some would like to see Gingrich run. I do agree with his politics, but we conservatives are picky about some things, and Gingrich has some unacceptable baggage. I would definitely vote for him before any democrat in the field however.


No, I don't expect perfection out of anybody . . . even Presidents. But, how dare he command other's children into harms way when he doesn't do it himself. While other citizens' children are dying in Iraq, his little girls are traveling and getting shit faced . . . at our expense.

Such great leadership from the first family.

My God. Get off that childish rant.

His girls getting shit-faced? News to me, what did I miss?

How dare you belittle the armed forces by suggesting they are in a situation that they didn't know could happen. Especially today. It's been almost six years now since 9/11 and there are probably no stop-loss soldiers serving that didn't have a chance to get out since then.

Please don't insult the military like that again. Defending a few pussies in the military doesn't cut it with me. We all knew what we signed up for.


You are a moron. I'm not a liberal or a conservative (especially conservative). I tend to be a little of both. I just hate hypocrisy.

I hate hypocrisy too, but I don't see it where you do, and you have offered no credible evidence. Only liberal inspired opinion! You sure act like a liberal.


I'm sure it was rumored that Kennedy loved his women, Nixon was paranoid, FDR's wife (Elenor) was a lesbian, etc.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Before my time of political knowledge, I don't know. The problem is separating rumor from fact.


I'm sure there's truth to his cocaine addiction. And, the truth is . . . I don't give a shit. I really don't care.
Liar.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring up something that has absolutely no credible evidence.

You are doing anything you can to bash Bush. How unbecoming of a human.

What I do care about is that the conservatives look the other way when one of their own has a sordid past, but condemn you to hell when you're on the other side.

Are you joking?

You don't absorb facts very well, do you. Conservatives and/or republicans are constantly losing positions just from allegations. Even with well founded facts, liberals and/or democrats very seldom are affected by any scandal. The voters who vote republican tend to boot out those who have any scandal, and democrat voters seem not to care about the scandals surrounding their candidates.

As for allegations, it works both ways. Democrats however continually accuse republicans with no factual basis. Just "truthiness."


Please. You seriously aren't that stupid, are you?

The stupid ones are the ones who believe the cocaine allegation from one person, a charge that nobody else has ever reported witnessing.


Just answer this:

How many days did he spend in service at Vietnam?
And, how long did John Kerry spend in service at Vietnam and surrounding countries during the time of the war?

Can you answer that?

President Bush: Zero

Senator Kerry: I think nine months, maybe ten. I could look it up, but it isn't that important.

Liberals complain about president Bush leaving the military early, but senator Kerry did too! Did you know that?


So, you're saying that the first family is above serving their country??

No. I'm saying this is a free country, and they are not expected to serve.

People like you who bring up that lame argument don't care that president Clinton didn't serve. Besides, one of the things that lost for Kerry was that he served as a coward and a traitor to the uniform.

Then what is really laughable, is that the Kerry campaign was the one to start with the military stuff. Repeating lies about what was proven different during the 2000 election.


You don't understand anything about how our country was founded. The Founding Fathers hated the English monarchy. The feared a return to monarchy in the colonies. That's why, when they drew up the Constitution, they made sure that the Legislative Branch (Article I) had more power than the Executive (Article II, you now . . . the President and his staff). The least powerful of the branches was the Judicial (Article III) meant only to keep the Legislative Branch in check.

Silly me. I thought it was three equal branches.

Source?

Believe me, I do understand. Only an idiot would think I don't understand such a thing with such a short discourse.


However, the Judicial Branch has progressively become more conservative since the 80s. And, they decided who the President was going to be when we had the Florida fiasco and Al Gore had the popular vote. Bush, returning the favor, has replaced to Justices with two very conservative individuals.

Idiot alert....

The supreme court did not decide the election. They stopped the illegal lower court ruling! They upheld Florida law you idiot! There you go again, repeating leftist lies without research.

The judicial is suppose to be non-partisan. What is called conservative judges by the left are those who conserve the intent of the constitution. The liberal judges are activists!


But, to counter your point, the Constitution does not give the Exectuive Branch pretty broad powers.
You are just flat out mistaken.

No. You are mistaken. I could take you through a mini-course, but that would take far more typing than I am willing to spend on the subject.

Your homework assignment:

Find a dictionary at least 100 years old and look up words like "executive," "warrant," "unreasonable," and other key words in the constitution that have changed over time. You will find that the president has far more power than how words are defined today.

To understand a historical document, you must understand the word usage of the time. You cannot apply today's meanings.


How about if you take a look at the Constitution instead of just regergitating things others have told you to believe.

I have a double B.A. in History and Government.

LOL... You wasted your money then, because you definitely failed in the truth department. Just another college educated idiot huh?


Try and argue.

What's the background to your education?

High School Grad, Very high IQ, to bored to go to college.

Training doesn't matter. It's how well you learn and perform. Anyone who isn't lazy can get a BA, PHD, etc. Schools really suck these days anyway.


Quote the scripture then, if you're so sure.

Show us all where Jesus says that you should carry a knife and defend yourself.

It's there. I cannot recite it completely accurate, but the context is intact.

After thought though, knife might be sword, then I looked it up. It is sword.

Start reading at Luke 22:35.


Becuase, that pretty much goes against his "turn the other cheek" and "all who live by the sword shall perish by the sword".
Don't turn Jesus into a hypocrite. Be one if you like, but don't turn Jesus into one just to justify what you may believe.

Time, place, and manner. It's not hypocritical.

Besides, striking the right check is considered an insult, not a physical threat. Does Jesus advocate complete pacification? No self defense anywhere? Not to my knowledge.

Show me!


Yea, great.
I have given facts.

And you?

I haven't seen any facts? Please specify...

What did I miss?

Oh... BA degree, recovering addict, several are hoping Gingrich will run...

I don't see any facts related to the current topic however. Only repeated propaganda.

[sabar]

The scripture can be read both ways, but people will just pick the way that pushes their own agenda (as usual with the bible). If you ask me, the sword is not supposed to be for killing as Jesus himself would be contradicting himself over 10 times about not using violence in previous passages.

You can't follow the words of Jesus and support war of any kind without twisting his words. I'm not sure how any human being supports the atrocities of war. I guess people don't care if they aren't in it.

Without further ado on that specific reading:



Source (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XK5TLOJu3tMJ:www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/22_35-38.htm+Luke+22:35&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)




Text

Luke 22:35-38

[35] Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," they answered.

[36] He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. [37] It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

[38] The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"That is enough," he replied.






Did Jesus Really Mean for Them to Buy a Sword?

Let me argue both sides; then you decide.

On the one hand, it wasn't uncommon for travelers to carry a short sword to protect themselves against bandits and thieves who preyed on them in the lonely stretches of road. Jesus may be anticipating the time when the disciples would travel hundreds of miles beyond Jerusalem, as tradition tells us they did. To carry a small sword doesn't make them violent or evil men, just men prepared for any contingency.

For decades I have enjoyed J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Frodo carries the heavy burden of destroying the Ring and keeping it from the enemy in the dark Land of Mordor. So Frodo and his Hobbit companions -- Sam, Pippin, and Meriodoc -- set out on their journey. In the Shire they have no need of weapons, but when they prepare to leave the Shire they equip themselves with swords. They are not warlike. They come on a peaceful mission, but they refuse to be deterred by their enemies. They are equipped to defend themselves if necessary so that they might complete their vital mission.

On the other hand, Jesus seems critical of violence and using weapons. The sword is generally used in the Bible to indicate warfare and violence. Jesus recognizes that he is introducing a faith that will arouse intense antagonism. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

When Peter draws his sword and cuts of an ear in his zeal to prevent Jesus' imminent arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus responds, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:51-52). He may have been trying to protect Peter from immediate death, since Judas was accompanied by the armed temple guard against which one or two swords would have been no match. If Peter hadn't sheathed his sword immediately, he probably would have been struck down by the soldiers. But Jesus seems to be laying down a general truth -- violent men can expect to die violent deaths.

Luke's account includes the disciples' question in the Garden: " 'Lord, should we strike with our swords?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him" (Luke 22:49-51). Jesus' whole mission is about healing and giving life, not death.

John's account includes a word to Peter who has been unable to accept Jesus' suffering and death (Mark 8:33). Peter's swordplay is having the effect of frustrating Jesus' mission to redeem mankind by his death.: "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11).

Many commentators see Jesus' command to obtain a sword as figurative rather than literal. Schlatter says,

"Jesus was not speaking of increasing their weapons. But just because He was not thinking of their weapons, the disciples needed the courage which regards a sword as more necessary than a cloak, and which will surrender its last possession but cannot give up the fight."[6]Marshall sees it as "a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice."[7] Geldenhuys assumes Jesus meant it spiritually, and sees the disciples who take it literally as "still blind to the spiritual nature of the Lord's work and kingdom."[8] Green sees Jesus' words as "a metaphorical reference to the coming [spiritual] reality," and his words "It is enough" as an expression of his exasperation with the disciples' dullness.[9] Calvin declares, "It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron."[10] And nowhere in the New Testament, besides the incident with Peter in the Garden, do Christians take up arms as they spread the faith.

[Wild Cobra]

This is not a religious discussion. I should have never answered the aspect of self protection.

This is a thread about Libby isn't it?

Where is the credible evidence that Libby intentionally lied?

Where is the credible evidence that his sentence was commuted to keep him from talking?

I haven't seen it yet, only misdirection to other topics.

Can we stay on topic?

[boutons_]

"Where is the credible evidence that Libby intentionally lied?"

he was convicted by a jury of lying repeatedly. That's not enough for you? Why did he lie? To coverup for dickhead and others.

"Where is the credible evidence that his sentence was commuted to keep him from talking?"

Libby was dickhead's right hand man/chief-of-staff in 2003, he knows how the lying, bogus case for the war was built, and was part of the campaign to slime Wilson. He's the last person that dickhead wants to start spilling the beans because he alone finds himself sitting in prison.

If you still want to believe blindly, religiously, after 6 years of watching thse dishonest, incompetent, evil mofo's fuck up everything they've touched, that dubya and dickhead are innocent Boy Scouts with the nation's best interests at heart, that's your problem.

[xrayzebra]

What is he covering up about. Everyone knows who outed Ms. Wilson. That person wasn't prosecuted, wonder why, could it be
like I have said before, she wasn't covert? Just a normal employee
at CIA.

But you and those like you have to have something to hang
your hat on to find blame for Bush and company.

[Wild Cobra]

"Where is the credible evidence that Libby intentionally lied?"

he was convicted by a jury of lying repeatedly. That's not enough for you? Why did he lie? To coverup for dickhead and others.

Some time ago, I found a site that had all the testimony and PDF files of the evidence. I didn't see anything convincing that he purposely mislead anyone during the investigation. Valerie Plame was know as:

Joe Wilson's wife
Valerie Wilson
Valerie Plame

When knowing someone as one name, then asked about another name not knowing they are the same person, he said in essence "no, I didn’t hear it was her." Later, when asked by another name, he answered "yes." This is the way his testimony was, and yes he knew by the investigation, they were the same person, it is confusing. Did he lie? Yes if you take the technical version of a lie, giving false information. When you can convict on a "technicality" because someone isn't absorbing all the new information, then the system is broke.

What I keep asking, and nobody has yet to show me is an exchange of words that justify the verdict, and to show he intended to lie.


"Where is the credible evidence that his sentence was commuted to keep him from talking?"

Libby was dickhead's right hand man/chief-of-staff in 2003, he knows how the lying, bogus case for the war was built, and was part of the campaign to slime Wilson. He's the last person that dickhead wants to start spilling the beans because he alone finds himself sitting in prison.

So you are one who takes circumstantial situations and truthiness and declare then as facts?

I see no facts in those suppositions!


If you still want to believe blindly, religiously, after 6 years of watching thse dishonest, incompetent, evil mofo's fuck up everything they've touched, that dubya and dickhead are innocent Boy Scouts with the nation's best interests at heart, that's your problem.

You really have that wrong. There is no evidence of dishonesty, incompetence, or evil intent. Now I disagree with several things in the Bush administration, but he says what he believes and he tries to act on his beliefs. Can you say that for the democrats? As much as he pisses me off on the amnesty bit, excess social spending, and allowing pork... I at least respect his integrity.

President Bush is a moderate. I don't fully get the neocon term, because I don’t see very many being dubbed that to be labeled correctly.

Incompetence will be the easiest for one to try to make claim to, but remember this. Nobody is perfect. If perfection is your standard, then everyone is incompetent, including you.

[boutons_]

"I didn't see anything convincing that he purposely mislead anyone during the investigation. "

of course not, you were looking to find him innocent. The jury and a dubya-appointed judge found otherwise, in spite of Libby having excellent legal support.

"he says what he believes and he tries to act on his beliefs"

that's his big problem. I don't give a fuck about his or anybody else's beliefs, when they aren't verified against science, close, open-minded observation, and analysis. Belief is what people fall back on when they fail to perceive reality accurately, just like in religion.

dubya is an intellectual/emotional dwarf who achieved nothing on his own in his entire life. He's a failed person, and a failed president.