Poll: American majority disagree with Bush on Libby

"When the discussion turned to an outright pardon, 82 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of Republicans and a whopping 97 percent of independents opposed such a move by Bush."

That's good news for Scooter. The more people that are against it, the greater the likelyhood that Bush will do it at this point.

Like he cares. This presidency was never about the American people, just the croonies. It's been a big gentlemans club, only no gentlemen are really there.

The commutation of the jail time for Libby puts the dirt of the Plame outing directly on Bush's hands. Before he did this all the dirt was on Cheney.
I guess you could say that Bush has dirtied the Presidency and become part of the campaign to discredit a critic of his Administration.

Interesting. Politics will always be politics. As has been pointed out the argument goes back and forth comparing other presidencies to this one (ie Clinton). For me what stood out was that the judge was appointed by Bush to be "tough on crime," to hand out stiff sentences. The prosecutor (over zealous as he may be to the supporters of the outcome of the case) was the one who was recommending a longer sentence than the probation officer. Naturally the "tough on crime" judge appointed on the merit he will render stiffer penalties would pick the stiffer sentence. And, then you have Bush come in and say that the penalty was "excessive."
Then he turns around and proposes a bill that would prevent judges from being soft on criminals; making them pick the longer sentence. Hypocritical move on the Bush's part any way you cut it. I guess the only stiff (and yes draconian) sentences should be adhered to and handed down on "drug dealers" and blue collar workers and only some white collar criminals, who's impact on society is just as damaging, when a "tough on crime Republican cow boy rides his trusty steed into the White House."

No to mention through his kinda like a pardon but not now has kinda like left a question mark of what do do with Libby or not. I mean if the man is going on supervised probation without spending time in prison what does that do with how traditionally probation is given out; after some time spent in the slammer. Oh wait it doesn't matter he will pardon him. Fine. I gave up on this administration anyway, and nice to know that so have most average thinking citizens.

C'mon you lackey apologistas. Let's trot out the mainstream America arguments. The silence is deafening! I guess you are astounded to find yourselves completely marginalized. Truth is, you were always marginalized, but you refused to admit it.

What makes the right think that we approved of Clintons' last minute pardons. I can say for myself I did not like it. To use these past wrongs as some sort of guideline for the future will never allow us to break the circle. Untill "all Americans, republican or democrat, call a wrong a wrong, we only "embolden" the politicians.

Nevermind all of my previous posts. I can only think that this is good for the country in the long-run. It will be a very, very long time before the Republican Party once again controls the Whitehouse. Oh, wait, let's don't forget the VP's branch of government. The Judicial Branch is a lost cause for the next couple of generations.

Have I missed something? Did Hillary find some way to pardon criminals? What are you talking about? Hillary has not pardoned anyone. Now Bill has a terrible history of pardoning people that could get up the money, but he is not a candidate.

Have I missed something? Did Hillary find some way to pardon criminals? What are you talking about? Hillary has not pardoned anyone. Now Bill has a terrible history of pardoning people that could get up the money, but he is not a candidate.

Why anyone would find these statistics surprising is, itself, a surprise. Most people believe that a criminal convicted by a jury should face his or her punishment and not try to wiggle out. It is for this very reason that pardons and commutations will draw criticism every time.

Of course, there are special reasons to dislike the partial pardon already given in the Libby case. It stinks of cronyism between a very unpopular President and his allies in the White House. The President’s claim that the sentence was excessive was just so much painful B.S. because the sentence was prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, and Duh’bya never was one to try to work with lawmakers to make sentences under the guidelines “fair” before this case. It is doubtful he will try to do so now.

On the other hand, there is the contention that the investigation shouldn’t have gone forward because the special prosecutor already knew that Richard Armitage in the State Department was the one who leaked Ms. Plame’s name. That this is true has some tendency to show that Libby was set up in a well executed “perjury trap” during unnecessary grand jury proceedings. A perjury trap consists of calling a witness and asking him or her a series of difficult, embarrassing, and damaging questions – not necessarily have any direct relevance to anything – just in order to get the witness to lie. Any resulting lies (and many people will lie under these circumstances) are used to prosecute the witness. In this particular case, the witness so trapped was not guilty of any other identifiable wrongdoing. This is dirty pool for a prosecutor, given that prosecutions are supposed to root out crimes and not create them.

Of course – as my leftward friends will be quick to point out – the “perjury trap” tactic doesn’t rise to the level of entrapment, and so it doesn’t excuse Libby’s lying under oath. Furthermore, the jury rejected Libby’s primary defense, to wit: that he had merely suffered from a lapse of memory. This is all admittedly true.

Yet, somewhere in the middle of the two positions, there might still linger in the mind of a reasonable person the notion that Libby didn’t deserve what happened to him. Another President, given these circumstances, might have come to the conclusion that Libby deserved a pardon, or the partial pardon that Bush granted him - because justice is never served by the means used to convict him. It is also fairly certain that a President less despised than George Bush might have granted the same partial pardon with less criticism.

Hear hear BillR. So correct you are. But the lockstep connies will never stray from the path of rightwingnut political correctness. One reason the Dems suffer at the polls is, they encourage independent thinking. The republitards - not so much. As a matter of fact, party discipline is the only thing that matters. It is more important than what is good for America.

Hey, Swamp. This from a lifelong Democrat: This is politics. Get over it!

Plame ain't sufferin' as far as I can tell, and the guy in Office (and his second-in-command) ain't even running for reelection. So they sure as hell don't care.

Can we move on to something that we can really do something about -- and matters?

I'm in the 11% of Democrats who are undecided on this -- since there is no category for "who gives a flyin' whatever?".

Biggdawg,

Follow the link to the transcript by Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald regarding the seriousness of the outing of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame.

It will explain why you should care:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?ex=1183953600&en=78c3a162c0047749&ei=5070

Doug I don't care what Fitzgerald says at his damage control site. He bungled the job. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Well Doug, this Christopher Hitches piece does a good job of putting it all in the correct perspective:

http://www.slate.com/id/2148555

No CIA mission was damaged or exposed, Plame was not exposed or in danger, as Bob Novak reported he got Plame's name from Armitage and it was backed up by the CIA (so the CIA helped in her outing as Novak called the CIA to verify the information he received), Wilson lied about Niger and so has the media for several years now, Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who the leaker was but still investigated, and even the left's hero, Bob Woodward, has gone on record as saying all of this has been a big todo about nothing.

If you are going to quote polls, you should stick with those with more credibility. The American Research Group included only 29 percent Republicans in this poll, as opposed to 38 percent Democrats and 33 percent "independents" who regularly skew left. (Republicans, as expected, were 86 percent opposed).
Anyone familiar with polling techniques
would recognize this sample as flawed. Incidentally, a web search of the American Research Group failed to find any information about the "group." Perhaps you can enlighten us, Mr. James, as to whether this is just another of many organizations with a bias.

Jerry White,

Fitzgerald didn't bungle anything. Libby obstructed justice for which he was duly convicted.

Were it not for that obstruction, Fitzgerald would have gotten to the next rung up the food chain - Cheney.

John D.,

The link you posted does not claim "No CIA mission was damaged or exposed."

In fact, without direct knowledge of Plame's covert activities neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that.

What can be said with certainity is that anyone thinking about being a covert CIA agent will give pause wondering whether they might be outed for political purposes - as was done here.

And what about foreigners who might have interacted with Plame? What about foreigners who might be thinking about working with the CIA? You don't think they aren't watching how this plays out?

John, if you don't give a crap about anything but winning elections, just say so.

Impeach Bush and Cheney!!!

Libby committed perjury. Jail is deserved. End of story. I have no faith in this President. Them again I'm only a person who voted for him. What a mistake. I'll never forgive myself! Crooked sham of a conservative Bush is. He is ruining the republican party that right minded people once looked to for leadership. A complete disgrace to all we hold dear about America. I hope the smarter people commenting here can forgive me for ever supporting this mess of a leader.

John D, Bruce, and other "soft on crime" apologists, please riddle me this:

Why should anyone who is not a partisan Republican cheer the commutation of Scooter Libby?

Yo Middle America Riddler and Doug, we can go round and round about whether Ms. Plume was covert or not. Fact is, Armitage outed her and it really wasn't an out nor was it in retaliation. Remember, Armitage was against the Iraq War, so why would he "out" her to get back? Second, after Armitage told Novak it was Plame, Novak called the CIA and the CIA verified it was Plame. So, if the CIA "outed" her then perhaps she wasn't covert?
There was no crime in her "outing" otherwise Fitzgerald would have indicted Armitage, Libby, whomever for that "outing." Fitzgerald knew within a few days it was Armitage, so why continue investigating? So Libby was indicted for allegedly lying in something that was no crime. I would say at the minimum a commutation is fine. And since it riles you Loons up, I'm even more Ok with it!

John D.....I keep hearing about no crime. Did the justice dept. just make up a new law? Did the judge who over saw the case, who was appointed by Bush to be "a tough judge" invent this crime? please inform me as to why this wasn't a crime.
Did the justice dept. make up this crime? and if so who and why?

John D is one angry little mental defective. Pay him no mind he must be off his meds. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid John, and quit stealing my material!!!

Bill R., the no crime was in the "outing" of Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald was hired to investigate who outed Plame and if the outing was a crime.

Fitzgerald knew in just a few days the outer was Richard Armitage. Was Armitage indicted for outing Plame? No. Her "outing" was not a crime.
The only "crime" committed apparently was that Libby lied to investigators and in front of a grand jury. But in the actual "outing" of Plame, there was NO crime. No one was indicted for it. We know who the outer was and no indictment.
You folks keep thinking Libby was found guilty of "outing" Plame. He was not. Libby wasn't even indicted for "outing" Plame. His indictment really had nothing to do with her "outing." Kapeesh?

You folks keep thinking Libby was found guilty of "outing" Plame. He was not. Libby wasn't even indicted for "outing" Plame. His indictment really had nothing to do with her "outing." Kapeesh?

Posted by: John D | July 8, 2007 6:11 PM

Your knowledge of what we think is as good as Bushs knowledge of the Iraqi people. No one thinks Libby "outed" Plame. He lied plain and simple...under oath. If you use this same thinking for Clinton, what "crime" did Bill commit? You guys always say he lied under oath, but if there was "no crime" how is this different?