The American Spectator

Basil Plumley| 2.17.09 @ 12:50PM

Well stated. Of course, Bush had no problem going to GA and calling the folks against Shamnesty a bunch of bigots.
Bush found a way of not defending himself from his enemies and not ingratiating himself with his allies. Like his father, Bush's tenure in office will be known for its missed opportunities.

I like Cheney and wished he had been POTUS at least for the last 4 years. My only complaint I have with Cheney is .........
he should have done his hunting in Washington DC; he could have bagged some turkeys and doves.

Willard| 2.17.09 @ 1:02PM

Well put? We are better off to be rid of those crooks that inhabited the White House for the last 8 years. They were a disgrace to the world. Anyone who can't figure that out, well...you can't fix STUPID!

amsron| 2.17.09 @ 1:35PM

Well said, Willard. There's always a kernel of truth in any joke, but nothing has ever been more fundamentally funny than the question, "What did Bush know and when did Cheney tell him?" As for Libby, it was the court's decision and I think in the end, Bush realized just how flagrantly he had been manipulated by the Neo-Cons. That's the only reason I can think of that he DIDN'T pardon Scooter.

JTS| 2.17.09 @ 1:42PM

Bravo, QH! Bush has a wierd mixture of self-righteous stubbornness and warped sense of loyalty. Scott McClellan is an outcome of these traits. So is “Brownie and dozens of other hack appointments Bush made to sensitive posts. While Libby may have deserved jail time for the nickname “Scooter”, he broke no laws and was loyal to both Cheney and Bush and, as far as I have read, a competent advisor and well liked on both sides of the aisle. Talk about being thrown under the bus! Bush threw the poor bastard under the bus then finished him off with a Zambonie.

clashseeker| 2.17.09 @ 3:07PM

Cheney was never in the military, but he knew their were two kinds of bayonet fighters , the quick and the dead. he'd have taken the bully pulpit and kicked the crap outa the democrats and the media punks. Bush was politeness man, a turn the cheek Christian. he is a living endorsement that a man of religion should not be president. The republicans need to nominate an atheist asskicker.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 3:11PM

Makes me laugh that outraged liberals are joyous that the repub crooks are out of the White House. They point out the speck in their neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log that is in their own . Hypocrites.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 3:18PM

The 'Compassionate Conservative' was always a weak, self-serving man. I'm sorry that Libby received such poor treatment. Both Cheney and Libby are good men who deserved better.

Louise| 2.17.09 @ 4:45PM

God bless Cheney! Shame on Bush!

JTS| 2.17.09 @ 4:48PM

The 'Compassionate Conservative' was always a weak, self-serving man
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ain't that the truth, Ruth :-)

Boozer| 2.17.09 @ 6:50PM

I seem to have stumbled into the lunatic room. BTW, You either need a new editor or need to learn how to write.

Troke6| 2.17.09 @ 7:05PM

Is it true that Scooter never requested a pardon?

If so, that might explain no-action on Dubya's part.

Kat| 2.17.09 @ 7:15PM

Eloquence delivered by a poster named Boozer. Probably a liberal and should be named Stoner.

skeptical| 2.17.09 @ 7:42PM

So his conviction in a court of law for obstruction of justice was meaningless?

He didn't fit any of Bush's criteria for a pardon. He didn't serve his term; he didn't express his contrition; he didn't apply for the pardon through proper channels. So for Hillyer, connections, not policies are more important. Bush's commutation of his sentence already was a violation of those policies.

But of course that's to say nothing of either the rule of law in a criminal investigation, nor the betrayal of a clandestine intelligence officer whose work had been to track WMD that could be used against the United States--in order to score cheap political points.

Both the rule of law and the trust of the American people were violated. I agree, then, what difference would it have made to void the jury's verdict when the force of the sentence had already been removed? What difference does it make if the least trusted President in a century had not stood on the fake niceties of his previous commutation and just rewarded one more crony? How shameful!

Dale Mader| 2.17.09 @ 8:45PM

Yes, Cheney is a forceful, brilliant man who would have made an excellent president, and he was right to push for a full pardon, but come on, Hillyer, it seems like you're always using your good arguments as a excuse to attack Bush. Get over it.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 10:54PM

So his conviction in a court of law for a faulty memory was meaningless? In a word, yes. In no way can Libby's innocent memory malfunction compare to the steady stream of liberal liars, thieves and cheaters now passing through the White House. Such disgustingly shameful liberal hypocrisy!!

Basil Plumley| 2.18.09 @ 12:59AM

@ skeptical

".....nor the betrayal of a clandestine intelligence officer whose work had been to track WMD that could be used against the United States--in order to score cheap political points."

Ah, the talking points of the Left. Shouldn't you be demanding the trial and conviction of Richard Armitage who was Novak's source?
Oh wait, that would neuter your cheap political points made in your post.

Jan| 2.18.09 @ 6:41AM

I keep wondering what happened to the Grand Old Party. Then it dawns on me...

This:
"Libby wasn't guilty of perjury. At worst, he had a bad memory. But [...] Either way, Liby deserved a pardon."

EITHER WAY?
"Deserved" a pardon???
What makes someone "deserve" a pardon for committing perjury?
Is it because the US VP and his cronies don't respect the authority of US federal courts?
Whew.
You might have even enjoyed martial law, as long as it was under Cheney, huh?

In the future, if you ever stop to wonder why the GOP brand is currently going to hell for the next generation...

This is why:
You think government officials "deserve" pardons for committing perjury in our courts of law.

What a Sad Old Party.

Jan| 2.18.09 @ 7:01AM

re: "Ah, the talking points of the Left. Shouldn't you be demanding the trial and conviction of Richard Armitage who was Novak's source? Oh wait, that would neuter your cheap political points made in your post. "

The one who is repeating cheap -- and I do mean CHEAP -- political talking points is you.

Did Richard Armitage make Libby lie to the court or something? I must have missed that part.

It appears that Armitage did not lie to the court and Libby did. That's what perjury is all about.

So, why doesn't CHENEY demand the trial and conviction of Richard Armitage?

Can't you even hear yourselves anymore?
The COURT -- with a jury of Scooter Libby's peers -- judged that Scooter Libby perjured himself in their court.

And YOUR solution to YOUR problem with the federal court's verdict is that those of the Left demand that the court convict SOMEONE ELSE instead Libby.

ROTFLMFAO!

You guys can't even think straight anymore.

2006 was a Thumpin'.
2008 was a solid majority in all branches of government.
2010 is going to be a cakewalk.

Michael Dooley| 2.18.09 @ 7:19AM

At the end of the day, Libby was convicted on the basis of Tim Russert's testamony. I believe even Russert wanted Libby to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Russert was a fair minded man; but, even if he weren't, the prospect of having Russert's testamony concerning a casual conversation put you in jail killed a lot of interviews).

What is truly curious is why was Libby hauled into court when Valerie Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, perjuried himself before Congress with no repercussions.

I don't pretend to know what was in the mind of Bush; but Libby should have been pardoned to restore his honor and the honor of his family.

Ken STL| 2.18.09 @ 9:16AM

Jan:

The reference to "either way" clearly refers to who had the faulty memory ... Libby or Russert. QH does not imply that Libby deserves a pardon if he was, in fact, guilty of perjury.

Quin| 2.18.09 @ 10:13AM

Jan,
You are now in the same league of mendacity as Maureen Dowd. Your use of the ellipse deliberately changes the meaning of what I wrote. I thank Ken STL for correcting the record. I clearly said that I do not believe Libby was guilty of perjury, and the "either way" refers to whose memory was faulty.
As for "skeptical," you can probably be forgiven for responding as you did, because you are not responsible for knowing everything else I have written on the subject. But if you go back to our accessible archives, you will see copious evidence that refutes your statement accusing me of thinking connections are more important than policies. I believe the man is not guilty of any violation of the law. I think the trial was run poorly. I think the judge erred in his rulings. Etc., etc., etc. I therefore believe Libby should be pardoned -- NOT because of his connections.

ruth| 2.18.09 @ 2:25PM

I laugh at trolls like Jan who excoriate Libby for a faulty memory but approve of the liars, cheats and thieves in Obama's cabinet. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Don't be too sure of 2010, Jan, not with the liberal stupidity and arrogance on display right now . Liberals always over-reach, and they're doing it right now.

Basil Plumley| 2.18.09 @ 11:13PM

@Jan

Thanks for the illumination.

You clearly illustrate Montaigne's axiom:
"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."

There is nothing cheap about that axiom.

tiffany jewellery| 8.17.09 @ 3:30AM

I have written on the subject

ed hardy bikini| 2.3.10 @ 6:43AM

i love this article,thank you ,you did great
cheap ed hardy boots
cheap ed hardy t-shirts