30 months was excessive? I thought treason was punishable by death.

Scooter Libby will spend as much time in jail for lying to a Federal Grand Jury as Bill Clinton did for lying to a Federal Grand Jury.

See above:

What's astonishing is that the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/

The tragedy for Libby was that his talents were not used adequately with this particular administration. Scooter could have been an excellent conduit to lessen tensions with Iran through Marc Rich. Lost opportunities everywhere.

> an excellent conduit to lessen
> tensions with Iran through
> Marc Rich

A joke, right?

All three cases seem egregious. Martha Stewart remains the worst, however: while Rita and Libby were prosecuted for what they said under oath, Stewart was prosecuted for lying to federal investigators while not under oath.

There is nothing in the law that makes it illegal to lie to the police. "Really, officer, I thought I was only going 65". Imagine the chaos if there were!

Even under oath: it is only human to make mistakes, to recall events incorrectly. It happens all the time - frankly, in just about any court case with normal people on opposing sides.

The result is simple: any sensible citizen should refuse to talk to federal investigators, and refuse to testify in federal court. That seems to be especially true if you are innocent or uninvolved in the case at hand.

The federal government won't reign itself in. I've come to believe that the only way to go is to support the peaceful secession movements (you'd be surprised at just how many there are!). Leave Washington governing exactly nothing...

from the Supreme Court opinion:

Rita was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms.

So, Mr. Rita was convicted on two occasions of perjury in gun related investigations; in the second investigation, indictments for the underlying crime were returned. Not a compelling comparison to the Libby case.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

I'm finding it somewhat amusing that even Paris Hilton did more jail time than Libby.

A slight joke, but some truth to it.

There were rumblings a few years ago in Jerusalem, NYC, DC, Zurich, Rome, Riyadh and Cairo on some back room deal through Rich's contacts in Iran's Oil Ministry. But Ahmadinejad purged the 'reform' element from the ministry in late December of 2005 to mid 2006.

This current administration is way to fossilized in their in their policies to venture some maverick diplomacy.

Trust me when I tell you that she was damm lucky to escape the motion to revoke probation the first time. But to get hauled in front of the same judge for the same probation violation in a two week span? Come on, you or I would have spent much more time in jail than Paris. She is lucky they didn’t revoke her probation.

There are two fundamental issues here. The first is the abuse of power by a sitting president. We can safely say that this will not be resolved in our lifetime and Hillary should stay silent on this one (anyone remember the Rich pardon?).
The second concerns the facts of Libby's case. He is a "fall-guy". The true facts of this case may never come fully to light, but those who know them (Bush administration) felt that the sentence was "harsh". We must take that at face value. This man served his country, did what he was told and the Democrats are yelping because he won't spend time behind bars? Where's the logic?

How can the use of a constitutionally given power be labeled as abuse? We can all whine about how it should be used. However, I don’t believe the constitution is clear about what cases the president can and can not use the power.

As far as the Libby case goes, he lied even though he had no motive to lie. Granted there was nothing to lie about, but one shouldn’t do that under oath. I think the only argument here is that the media was given a pass from Fitz. Certainly he could have charged a few of them with perjury.

The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. received a Bank of America cashier's check Thursday, covering the $250,000 in fines Judge Reggie Walton ordered the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney to pay as part of his sentence.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/scooter-pays-up.html

> This current administration is
> way to fossilized

Verity. But I've heard that the truth is that Iran badly needs the nuclear energy... Last week there was a story that they're having to ration gasoline. In Iran!

The reason they don't have (their own) oil is that a theocracy can't run a brisk or proficient economy. So in the years ahead, a lot of very serious, compassionate UN-type people are going to be saying we should let them build the energy plants that they need, despite the risk of arms development.

Some of us will be saying they should be expected to try ditching the mullahs first. But we don't expect we'll be heard.

The reason Iran ran out of gas is not because they don’t have oil. It is because, like us they don’t refine all of their own gas. Like us, they have to import it.

When one imports something, they have to pay the going world rate. This makes it very hard to sell at Iran prices so the government pays the difference. Unfortunately for the Iranian government, they can not afford this.

Right, but they could, like, build refineries. If they had their shit together.

And so could we.

Snark in lieu of a good point. Maybe they'd be a good investment. Do you think so? Have you invested in any? Our economy and development aren't crippled, theirs is. Get the picture?

Here's Kinsley on this in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/opinion/05kinsley.html

WHEN the Republicans in Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, they insisted that it wasn’t about sex, it was about lying. Of course that wasn’t true. Even at the height of their power-mad self-delusions (when Newt Gingrich was conducting his own affair with an aide while prosecuting the president), Republicans realized that to make lying an impeachable offense was opening a door no politician should eagerly walk through.

Of course it was really about sex. Nevertheless, those of us who thought impeachment was an outrageous abuse of power by the Republicans had to accept that Mr. Clinton had, clearly, lied. And our argument was this: Mr. Clinton made a mistake. He should not have lied. But he lied in answer to questions he should not have been asked. He should not have been put in a position where he had to choose: he could lie under oath, and be impeached or worse, or he could tell the truth, and embarrass himself and his family, and probably still be impeached or worse.

In short, he was caught in a “perjury trap.” Bill Clinton chose wrong — it all came out anyway — and he defeated impeachment, though you wouldn’t say he got away scot-free.

The thing is, and it's the point of this post, either you're the tough sentencing president or you're not. Or you're the president who pledges to come down hard on leakers...or you're not. And so on.

Naw. The best evidence of Bush's impatience with leakers is the tightness of his ship during it's first six years or so (staffers would have been bailing by now even if both terms had gone swimmingly). And more to the point, these are not entirely black-and-white issues. People start to sound like teenagers, for whom any suggestion of irony is an ideology-detonating "hypocracy, man!"

Be as offended at this clemency as you want to be. That's kinda my take on all (well, most) of the wretchedness of this administration... Sure, get angry. But let's not be surprised. No clucking! There are no virgins in this electorate. And if there are, the history classes aren't doing their job.

You know, it's just really unfair when a Bush administration appointee prosecuted by an attorney appointed by a Republican Attorney General and convicted by a jury in a trial presided over by a Republican judge appointed by President Bush, and then sentenced by that judge in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines. However, as Bush noted in all of the cases in which he denied death row convicts pardons while governor, it's not his job to second guess a jury. Despite the great miscarriage of justice at the hands of left-wing political partisans, that's why Bush had no choice but to let the sentence given to Scooter Libby stand.

Oh, wait...

A funny side note to all of this - Bush's order wasn't reviewed by his legal staff, and may make even the parole portion of Libby's penalty moot (one must serve time in order be on parole!).

Another winner, GW!

And isn't Kinsley's point that Scooter didn't get away scot-free, either? Career over late in the day, retirement savings forfeit.

Crid,
Stupidity in lieu of a point, nice. “The reason they don't have (their own) oil is that a theocracy can't run a brisk or proficient economy.”
Yea I get the picture. You write what ever sounds right. Snark off.
Amy,
I respectfully disagree. Sex and lying are what the Times repeatedly told us it was about. Actually it was about obstruction of Justice. It doesn’t surprise me to see Kinsley slop some more BS around on this issue.
Thank you for explaining the post. I didn’t get that. I got, a comparison of Libby’s situation to Victor Rita’s with a vague equivalence of Paris Hiltons and Martha Stewarts served jail time compared to Libby’s lack there of. I think I have made my points about those topics, minus Martha Stewarts.
For what ever it is worth, I wouldn’t have pardoned him, nor would I pardon the Border guards. The problem is with our justice system, not presidential pardons. Anyone who has ever been in the system knows that justice is not what is served there.
We need a serious evaluation of that, not some stupid pardon, embedded in a long historical stupid pardon list.
Thanks again for providing us with this form.

Woops,
One more;
Very good point Justin, and all true!

> You write what ever
> sounds right.

You've seen through my smokescreen! That is so true.

Would you care to answer the point? With resources as precious as what Iran has underfoot, there's no excuse for not feeding, clothing and educating themselves, let alone getting along with their neighbors. Let alone getting along with Israel.

I never argued with your point, I only corrected the obviously incorrect parts. Then I pointed out that even we are having similar problems.
Since you appear to want me to comment, I will throw this out;
Mexico is a resource rich country also. So are many other failed States that are resource rich. Therefore, I don’t think being rich in resources rich country in any way guaranties success. Furthermore, I don’t think it is a states job to feed and clothe folks. The money would be better spent on infrastructure, thus providing a growing economy rather than a shrinking one.
As a last point, Iranians probably think they are feeding, clothing and educating themselves. Many of them believe we should do a better job getting along with our neighbors.
I do however agree with the rest of your point;
that a theocracy can't run a brisk or proficient economy. So in the years ahead, a lot of very serious, compassionate UN-type people are going to be saying we should let them build the energy plants that they need, despite the risk of arms development.

Those are quibbling, trivial, bitchy points.

You've come to the right blog.

For the record, I didn't say Iran's government should be feeding schooling etc... Just that they oughta stay out of the way.

Liberals so often confuse nations with their governments...

Crid,
I think Tribalism is just as big of problem in the Middle East. I am not sure if it is as big of problem in Iran, but certainly in the Middle East as a whole.

rusty wilson writes:

“The reason they don't have (their own) oil is that a theocracy can't run a brisk or proficient economy.” Yea I get the picture. You write what ever sounds right.

Well, that didn't take long. Pegged Crid in no time flat.

In light of the burden endured by our prison system, I'm all for giving non-violent offenders some alternative punishment.

rusty wilson writes, "Actually it was about obstruction of Justice."

Actually, both you and Amy are wrong. It was about Republicans clutching at straws in their vendetta against a popular, excellent and unforgivably a Democratic president.

There were dozens of hostile investigations instigated against Clinton beginning the very day he declared himself a candidate. Filegate, troopergate, whitewater, haircutgate. And even after he leaves office, the hostilities continued. 9/11 the Republicans began blaming Clinton for the attack the day it happened. Want the quotes?

The Republican mantra in 10 words or less? "It's all Clinton's fault."

And in the end, their efforts backfired. Clinton left office with a 55% approval rating, the highest since FDR (and yes, that would include the slumbering Ray-gun). And the punishment for their pettiness will be continued when Hillary sweeps her way into the oval office for the next eight years.

Future generations, if they are more enlightened, as I optimistically believe they will be, will marvel at this era, about how partisanship came before the interests of the nation, and how a blowjob among consenting adults got hyperboled into significance. "Man, they sure were dumb back then."

Yes, we are.

By the way, the word is "hypocrisy." Use Firefox; it's got a built in spell check.

It matters what ethnicity you are referring to Rusty within Iran. The Persian majority are not tribal centric at all. Iranian Kurds and the other Turkic ethnicities are quite tribal.

Also, the ruling mullahs have issued fatwas against building nuclear weapons, but are in favor of nuclear energy. Even they understand the limitations of their own oil supply.

Joe- How patient should we be with Iranian nuke development.

I would keep US presence in the region both Northern Iraq and Afghanistan. Increase Naval presence in the Persian Gulf states. Also, look towards Moscow. Putin will be the final shoe to drop for Ahmadinejad's government. The bounced check was heard around the world, especially with an ex KGB colonel's bruised ego. Russia’s ideal is a Tehran free of a US friendly government. The Kremlin doesn’t want a second re-appearance of those listening stations on the northern Iranian border.

The ruling Mullahs are like other religious-political leaders and will act in a very slow but deliberate manner. They will never sacrifice their revolution over the ‘engineer’ president’s* delusions of grandeur.

*That is the insult used by the mullah’s official newspapers/news sites in Parsi.

A second appearance, not a second re-appearance.

As of a couple of weeks ago, we had three carrier groups pointed at their shore. At some point you'll be able to walk over Gulf from Dubai (and if you do, please bring drinks, Ipods, and busty babes).

But that was then, and those fuckers get around. Armchair warriors would enjoy a website called wherearethecarriers.com, especially if it had links to Google Earth.

Terrorists would probably love it too.