First thoughts

Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:10 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carly Zakin
*** Base Politics: What would have happened had President Bush NOT commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence? Sixty percent of Republicans still approve of Bush's job. Had he let Libby go to jail, that number would have dropped further. His approval rating among Democrats -- and even independents -- can't get much lower. Also, imagine the morale level of White House staffers had Bush let Libby go to prison. If the president hadn't showed loyalty to Libby, wouldn't that have sent the message that he doesn’t value loyalty, which would possibly open the floodgates for staffers to start venting publicly? And one can't help but wonder if this semi-vacation week was viewed as the ideal time to slip this through, hoping it would fade by the end of the week.

*** Even Paris Hilton Served Time:

But then again, can Republicans try to persuade voters in 2008 and beyond that they are the party or rule and law after Bush commuted the sentence of a man who committed perjury -- a crime for which plenty of people are serving time behind bars? In fact, the White House will not be looking forward to the number of "example" cases that various media outlets will unearth about those who didn't get a similar hearing from Bush. And get ready for to hear this line a lot: Even Paris Hilton spent a few days in jail. At his 2000 GOP convention speech, which in part was a subtle dig at the Clinton Administration’s ethical lapses, Bush said: “And so, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.” Is that true anymore?

*** “Law & Order” Republicans? What would Arthur Branch have done? Well, we do know what the actor who used to play him, Fred Thompson, said about Libby: “This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." Giuliani, the former prosecutor, said in his own statement last night: "After evaluating the facts, the President came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct." Also, realize that Clinton was the LAST major Democratic candidate to issue a release on the Libby decision; it came, in fact, a few hours later than her five main rivals’ statements did. Considering how she ducked answering this question a few weeks ago at the AFSCME forum and Libby's connection to the infamous Clinton-era Marc Rich pardon, this is a news story the Clinton camp can't wait for to be over.

*** Where Did The Money Go?

Libby certainly kept the news about McCain’s disappointing second quarter and his campaign’s layoffs from becoming yesterday’s BIG story. But for those wondering why McCain isn't finished now, ask yourself: What’s his incentive of getting out? Do Romney/Giuliani/Thompson have a lock on anything yet? How likely will those candidates implode? Now you see why McCain can still become the last man standing. Yet the big question we have is: How did the campaign spend $23 million? Remember, although it didn’t meet expectations, it raised nearly $25 million in the first six months of this year. That's not chump change. (In fact, it's about the same amount of money John Edwards has raised to date.) Auditing the campaign will be of interest to some reporters come July 15.

*** Halftime: Since we're at the halfway point of the year, let's do a quick look at what’s happened in the 2008 race these first six months: Rudy's been more resilient than predicted; McCain has not; Fred Thompson was making fundraising calls for McCain six months ago; but no Republican has had a better six months than Romney. Bottom line: The GOP race is every bit as unsettled as the Democratic race was in 2004. Meanwhile, on the Dem side, it's no surprise that Clinton has remained strong. But six months ago, would you have believed that Obama was outraising her and was a solid second in most polls? Also, is Edwards fading or are Hillary and Obama simply setting a pace most candidates can't keep up with? And how many had Richardson and not Dodd as the second tier candidate catching a spark?

*** On The Trail: Most everyone is in Iowa: Biden, Dodd, and Romney make five stops in the Hawkeye State; Brownback makes four; Obama three; and Clinton makes two, with husband Bill. Elsewhere, Edwards is in North Carolina; Kucinich and Richardson address the National Education Association in Philadelphia and then Richardson heads to New Hampshire; McCain is in Iraq; and Paul presents medals to veterans in his district.

*** And Happy Fourth Of July: The morning edition of First Read will be taking a break over the holiday, and we’ll return bright and early on Monday, July 9. However, we will post updates on the First Read site as news warrants.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 39 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 62 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 109 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 126 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 137 days
Countdown to Iowa: 205 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 216 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 490 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 567 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Well it's almost been two years since Katrina, the event that started Bush's slide. This Libby deal is just what we needed to charge up the electorate for '08, not that it needed any more considering the Iraq quagmire. The conservatives are extremely pleased with Libby's commutation, and it is rallying them around the old flagpole, but they just don't get it. Their influence on the American psyche has faded. No one (other than themselves) listens nor believes their line of BS any longer. It's now in the cultural awareness that republicans are generally negative and these types of societal changes are usually irreversible and take many years to morph into the next thing. It must be very weird being an incumbent republican knowing that even safe seats are now ripe for the picking.

Jim, Santa Cruz (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:02 PM)

Dawn and Mel, have a happy and safe 4th of July. Mel, your town sounds like something out of a Norman Rockwell illustration. How nice!

Eileen, Navarre, FL (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:19 PM)

The pertinent facts of this case have already been decided and a sentence handed down in a court of law in a case presided over by a Republican Prosecutor, prosecuted at the request of the Central Intelligence Agency angry at the outing of an employee who they confirm had a covert identity. Obstruction of Justice occurred and justice was handed down and then circumvented by the bush administration. No doubt a full pardon will occur on the day the idiot leaves office. So all of you bush Libby apologists stop your squirming and own the fact that you believe that your men are above the law, and that this should be a nation of men instead of laws. Very Un-American of you. You should be ashamed.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:51 PM)

How can I relax on this July 4th? What with all the talk about the brave patriot Libby and friends, have we forgotten Al Queda? They are everywhere. My neighbors, brown folks, people with beards driving Beamers, they are all Al Queda. It is no secret. You gonna let those folks close to fireworks? The latest terrorist threat to this nation is cans of Jolt (Rush drinks it). If you do not immediately freeze cans of Jolt bought at the local gas station, they will become warm, then hot. If shaken, these cans of Jolt can explode and you will have hot Jolt all over your face! Do you think that is a coincidence? Al Qaeda has their name all over that one. Jolt is actually bottled as a joint venture between satanists and Al Qaeda. BE AFRAID! I have a garage full of cases of Jolt and I am not going to rest until I put a bullet in every can (and then if it is safe, of course, I'll chug it). That noise you hear out back by the '75 El Camino on blocks ain't firecrackers if you are in my neighborhood, fellow Americans. On this hallowed 4th, just be real scared. It is called patriotism where I come from.

Mark Thieme (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:04 PM)

I'm reading all of the pretzel logic from the Bush apologists on this blog, and I keep thinking about what my mom told me: Two wrongs don't make a right. Clinton is irrelevant. What Clinton did has no bearing on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of Bush's actions. You guys are incapable of coming up with a cogent argument supporting Bush's actions, and you are relegated to using Clinton as a shield. You know what Bush did was oily, and (Paul being a notable exception) you don't even have the moral fiber to say so. George W. Bush campaigned on bringing decency and integrity back to the White House. He ran against Clinton as much as he did Gore, so he built his glass house. He has proven time and time again that he is slicker, more of a moral relativist, and more of a parser of words than his predecessor. And you...the 26% of the country who called for Clinton's head, have proven your moral foundation...that which you and the press trumpet as a given of the "values" party...is ephemeral and facultative. Trying to point to any hypocrisy on the left is ridiculous: YOU are the self-proclaimed morals party, the family values party, the party of decency and integrity. You have built your glass house, now live in it.

Roger, Oakland, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:21 PM)

"two wrongs don't make a right, but two wrongs do make a right-winger".

unknown origin (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:35 PM)

Mark Thieme, Please keep your cans of Jolt away from my cannons. I don't want to take out the whole trombone section.

Mel, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:47 PM)

Scooter and the Bush Administration can be summed up,
"All in all, it's just another brick in th wall." The Wall, Pink Floyd

Acid Boy, AZ (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:57 PM)

Ron and Juan, have a great 4th of July. Only paid hacks can keep making excuses for this pathetic president. These republicans screamed about how Clinton ruined the presidency. To bad these blind idiots can not see the dictatorship that Bush wants so bad. There is not a law that he can break that Jerry and Dave will blindly defend him. These are the type of people that would vote in Hitler as long as he hates liberals. I have voted for republicans, Indepedents and Democrats over the years. I voted for Jessie Ventura-independant/Arnie Carlson-republican for gosh sakes. I vote for the person. Arnie Carlson is just like Arnie Schwarzanegger: Moderate republican. I consider myself a conservative democrat. But I would never ever blindly justify and enable a corrupt adminstration like Jerry and Dave. God you two, get a backbone or get a brain, but get something that will let you see the truth. That kool-aid keeps clouding your vision.

bobf (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:09 PM)

Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby still has to pay a fine and he is being disbarred. He's not getting off scott-free. If we were OK with the price Clinton paid for his perjury, I feel we have to be OK with Libby's punishment. Roger, it is not irrelevant what Clinton did. Republicans self proclaiming that they are the party of morals, decency and integrity doesn't make them so. Libby's paid a significant price for his actions. For those of you who do think he should have went to jail, exactly what should he have gone to jail for? Do you really think Scooter Libby was the person behind this mess???

Lewis, Cincinnat, Ohoi (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:26 PM)

Nick Ohio:The power to grant pardon by the presdient is in fact,upholding the law.This right is granted by the Constitution of the United States. Roger From Oakland. See:Aforementioned Constitution and the fact that its pardon provisions were penned by Jefferson,Monroe,Adams,Madison,et al and you will find this posters ''cogent defense''. What Clinton did , especially with Rich and the Rodhams,who were family members belonging to his wife can be considered ''oily''. Or what Ford did with Nixon, or Bush with the Iran-Contras. That Bush pardoned Libby can be considered ''oily''. But they are firmly grounded in constitutional law as well as the Document itself.Bush detractors are engaging in dishonesty when they allege that such pardons have no basis in law.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:30 PM)

Honestly all the talk of Libby is a waste of breath. Bush did what he can legally do. People check the Constitution (Article II, Section 2), it allows Presidential pardons. Yes, Bush has trampled all over the Constitution but not this time. Unless you want to change the Constitution there is nothing wrong here....try calling me a conservative and you are wrong...democrat who favors Obama's perspective on this

Joe, LA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:43 PM)

You know Libby's still going to get a full pardon don't you?

Ken, Seattle WA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:45 PM)

OK, Libby still owes a fine that will probably be paid for by conservative fund-raisers and may be disbarred, but being the newest neocon folk hero should have no problem getting a high-paid gig as a media figure, lobbyist, or think tank member. Where do I sign up for my own obstruction of justice charge? I don't feel he was behind this mess, but he's a loyal foot soldier and is covering up for the person behind this mess. As such he absolutely deserves jail for perjury and obstruction of justice performed as part of a cover up for deliberately compromising our intelligence community.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:47 PM)

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:30 PM)

I missed something. Where did anyone say that pardons don't have basis in law. Seriously, I missed that. This is not a slap.

Independent, Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:49 PM)

Lee, I'll grant you that what Bush did was legal. I also maintain that it is an arrogant abuse of power to have top aids within the Administration deliberately break the law then make sure there are no legal consequences. Additionally it's part of a pattern of arrogance, deception, and lust for power that makes the Bush gang unfit for public office and a positive danger to the nation itself.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:54 PM)

Joe, LA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:43 PM)

"Unless you want to change the Constitution there is nothing wrong here...."

The correct wording would be there is nothing "illegal" here. There is, IMHO, a lot that is very wrong.

Independent, Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:55 PM)

Lewis - Libby was tried, convicted and sentenced within the parameters of the law. No one has to justify the punishment or the crime. It's moot. Are you saying the prison sentence was too harsh? Do you disagree with the law? Or do you believe he committed no crime, the jury was incorrect in its verdict, and/or the Judge overstepped his bounds?

Roger, Oakland CA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:05 PM)

Lee - Yep, pardoning Rich was wrong. Yep, it's in the constitution. Yep, what Bush did was legal. Now, please explain to us why commuting Libby's sentence was the right thing to do.

Roger, Oakland CA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:05 PM)

Independant:See above post by NICK from Ohio.Specifically,here:''To do so[Pardon Libby],is a complete lack of respect of the law that he is supposed to uphold''.How is both respecting this law as well as upholding it an abridgement of this law?[Art.II].Also see: Sen.Chuck Schumer[D-NY]:Remarks,Associated Press,Jul.02,2007.Here,Bush ''tramples upon the law''.How is upholding the law ''trampling''it?

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:09 PM)

Look, I can rant and rave with the best of you but I know it will do nothing except raise my blood pressure (it's high enough already). I won't argue constitutional law. What angers people (including me) is the utter disregard for ethics with the belief that the Bush/Cheney cabal is above any law. I don't appreciate the middle finger in my face or the powerless feeling I have that the will of the people doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you read the other blog sites you'll see there is a percentage of people applauding Bush's decision and Fred Thompson's support for Scooter Libby. So, where does this leave us as a nation? I chose to write the comment of 11:08 am this morning because I want to reflect on what is courageous and noble about our country; not on the disgusting, sordid, and unethical actions of our politicians of both parties! This nation isn't even 300 years old and yet we are every bit as corrupt as Rome was when it became an empire. Think about it. So what do we the people do about this? Do we still want our democracy or are we ready to become a dictatorship? Are we that damned lazy and corrupt? Do the laws of the land apply to everyone or are there two sets of laws; one for the privileged and one for the rest of us commoners? YOU DECIDE!

Eileen, Navarre, FL (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:11 PM)

Oh Lee. Using the law to subvert the law is legal in this case.

None of the posters you cited said that the commutation or the pardons issued by others were illegal.

They said, and I concur, that although legal it was/is a travesty of justice.

Independent, Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:38 PM)

Gary:I am in no doubts that Libby broke the law.This is not the point.The point is that the president has constituional perogative handed him by the very Document that you people claim he is always breaking.The accuasation that we are ''Un-American''is beneath contempt and will not be adressed here.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:19 PM)

Bush has no right to claim he's conforming to the constitution since he wipes his butt on it when it stands in the way of what pleases him.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:57 PM)

Nothing in this pardon gives even a scintilla of evidence that Bush ''subverted''the law.What does the law say regarding the presentation of evidence?[based upon the 4th,5th Amendments].What evidence is there that Bush ''had''Libby break the law in order to later pardon him[or commute sentance].This is little more than supersonic hyberbole unsupported by irrefutable fact.These alleged ''travesties''occur all the time.It was OK when a Democrat president did it but not OK now.Vice versa for Republicans.This is not the point.Allegiance to the Constitution is.You have a beef?Get rid of the provision of that Article by amending the Document.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:20 PM)

None of you rightwingers ever have an actual defense of Bush's actions. Never. Always time-traveling back to the blue dress. Why can't you defend your guys on the merits of the case? What, you say there is no defense? You say you've given up your bogus claim to the moral high ground? You simply can't argue the fact that no matter what ANY president in the past has done, THIS president is wrong, THIS president has presided over the worst foriegn policy blunder in U.S. history, THIS president and his vice-president would in any just world stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Defend THIS president, if you can. Live in the present, and in the immediate future. THIS president is going to do a lot more damage to YOUR party, and OUR country in the next 18 months. Think about THAT.

Doug, San Diego (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:22 PM)

JIrby:He has every right.You will recall that those areas where Bush has been found to be in conflict with the Document,such as HAMDAN and others,the judiciary has stepped in to remind the Executive that they were abridging the Document.This is in no way the case with this commutation of the Libby sentance.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:26 PM)

Lee--YOU have no doubts that Libby broke the law. That's very big of you but all of your compatriots are ready to bestow the medal of freedom on him and will not admit that he did. Yes it is legal and constitutional and yes isn't it a wonderful lesson to our children? Lying to the LAW is a good thing sanctioned by our "President". He isn't about to let one of his good soldiers (who knows where all the bodies are buried) suffer the indignities of compliance with the law when he can legally get him off. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Abortion is legal, do you think that is right? I make no apologies for calling you Un-American! We have all been called worse here by you people. The divisions are set in stone now. I used to believe in bipartisan government until YOU PEOPLE tore it down. If that is how you want it then I hope that is how it is in '08. May an overwhelming democratic majority banish your party to nothing. Have a good 4TH of July celebrating your Administrations successful treason.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:29 PM)

Lee - if you have seen the same things I have and you come to that conclusion, there is nothing I can tell you that will change your mind. You point out that the judiciary has done a good job of keeping Bush on the straight and narrow. This is not true. They may have stepped in on one or two instances, but Bush has done nothing but break the law since he has been in office. If everybody was like you and these four of five other ultra-conservatives on this blog, we would be in a dictatorship now. You guys may think you are tough-minded realists, but you are the definition of sheep. America is lucky that Repubs have been continuously jumping ship from the time Bush's ratings were around 90 at the ground zero site until now when his lowest rating was 26%. I can assure you that those jumping ship are not the dummies. If you think otherwise, you will slurp up the consequences. You are a member of a small and shrinking minority, and you are close to becoming irrelevant. You and yours, (the strong Bush supporters), have the same numbers as the Hispanic vote now, twelve percent, and that isn't enough to get another Bush clone in power, not even with the other fourteen or fifteen percent of moderate Bush supporters. That's really all there is to it. I hope you are still on this blog in Nov. '08. That's when your kind will confront an ugly case of reality. Bush knows most people despise what he did, but facing that hate is better than having Libby in prison where any day he could squeal on Bush and Cheney and we would be faced with imprisoning the prez and the veep. Bush would rather walk through a throng of people spitting in his face than confront the consequences of being exposed as a major felon.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:28 PM)

JIrby--Thank you for saying it so well. I don't think or type well when I am angry. One day I will learn to walk away, cool down and formulate a cogent and convincing response that is far more effective than sputtering and spitting angry words. Thanks and have an enjoyable 4th of July. Happy Birthday America. Now is the time when you need your true patriots most.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:50 PM)

By the way, Lee = my above statement about Bush having no right to claim he's conforming to the constitution was intended as a moral right. It was in the spirit of two guys seeing a homeless guy walking down the street guzzling a bottle of tequila. One guy says "he cant do that", and you, Lee, are saying "what do you mean he can't do it? He's doing it." But check out this video, Lee. It answers your questions better than I can: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/ It's as close to a poli sci clinic at Harvard as you or I will ever get.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Wednesday, July 04, 2007 2:36 PM)

Thanks, Gary. I read your stuff.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:19 PM)

Jirby:It is not enough to merely cast down the gauntlet of accuasation,it must be supported by fact.Even a bush-league matchbook barrister knows that evidence must be presented in order to glean judgement sustained by the facts.All else remains in the catagory of ''supersonic hyberbole''I have heretofore alluded to.
If Bush has ''done nothing but break the law''then present SPECIFIC instance,that proves that a law was indeed broken by this president.You are in error Jirby.Bleating the same thing over and over again in the pattern of an ad nauseum page lifted from ''Animal Farm''is the essence of those who become sheep in thought as well as action.Say what one will regarding a Bush,his nascent replacements are among the worst this nation has ever produced and any one of these will continue these controversial pardons in their turn.Further,in the region of pardons,''moral rights''have not a damned thing to to with these actions.Someones ox is going to be gored,whether outraged parents in St.Paul see a drug-pusher-to-children get off the hook,or FALN nationalists handed their walking papers,or stepping in to protect family members and old political pals[as was done by Clinton].Or a Ford with Nixon,or a Bush I with Poindexter,or even here with Libby.In the eyes of ALL Americans,each president of each party commits in his time the indefensible[to these critics],action by the use of these pardons.Again,this is simply NOT the point.It is rather,that this action has totally legal and sound basis within the nations highest document.You do not pick and choose what you either like or dislike regarding said document,where some can be retained,and others,excised without the neccesary amending processes.This is not about Bush.[or Clinton].It is about the Document.I stand for this,having once sworn to protect it ''from all enemies,foreign and domestic''.Do not allow rank emotion to cloud the basic issue.That is,adherence to constititonal rights.[something even shrill partisan hacks like Olberman[a sportscaster,of all things], can learn from time to time].

Lee Holmes (Sent Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:21 PM)

I have been labelled unpatriotic by my President and his administrtion because I did not support the war in Iraq. Sigh. I thought the President took an oath to defend all the citizens of the United States, even those who do no agree with him. Where did my rights go?

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:06 AM)

Lee--No one disputes the legality of a president commuting a sentence. The dispute is over the morality of a President giving a commutation or a pardon (which will come on inauguration day '08)to a subordinate who was acting on his behalf either explicitly or implicitly. That is abhorrent but completely in line with the corporate morality that has replaced common decency in this country. Spin, twist, apologize, and excuse all you want, the fact of the matter is that this commutation was issued for the self serving interest of the chief executive and his minions or I should say the chief minion and his executive. Any way you slice it Lee, A President who uses his Constitutional powers to excuse and protect the Criminal activities of his sub-ordinates is immoral and Un-American as is anyone who supports and excuses this President. And both are beneath contempt.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:01 PM)

"A President who uses his Constitutional powers to excuse and protect the Criminal activities of his sub-ordinates is immoral and Un-American" as opposed to a President who use his Constitutional powers to excuse and protect the criminal activities of his business associates and political contributors?

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:13 PM)

No Illusions, we have still have an operation going on in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. They are being paid through Iraqi oil porfits.To date, they have not found any of those weapons. Whose dillusional now?

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:29 PM)

Lee - I think most reasonable people who read your post will agree that you are a nut case. I have already told you that you have seen the same things I have the past six years and you have arrived at a different conclusion. Either you haven't been paying attention or you have a huge blind spot when it comes to evaluating Bush. He started right out breaking the law. I don't intend to go over everything that you should have seen for yourself but didn't, but I will go over a few things. Running up to the 2000 election, Bush and gang found ways to disenfranchise voters in Dade county, possibly enough to give Gore a win there. Then, the Repubs in his corner hired gorillas to stand around and intimidate the people recounting the vote in Dade County. The Repubs on the Supreme Court then ruled in Bush's favor. A few weeks later Bush appointed Rehnquist's daughter and Scalia's son to high government posts. Get it? He's repaying Repubs on the Supreme Court for ruling in his favor. In later months, he and Cheney start an illegitimate war supported with lies. Then Bush and Cheney get subordinates to out Valerie Plame to punish her husband for exposing one of their phony reasons for going to war. They hire Halliburton to go over to Iraq and look after the grubby little details. They send Halliburton carloads of unmarked greenbacks to cover their expenses and pay themselves. Halliburton and other contractors walk off with nearly a billion dollars in unmarked currency, the biggest heist since Enron. Henry Waxman, (D-Cal) is still looking into that one. Next, they send close to a billion to Iraqis they have appointed to supply the Iraqi troops with uniforms and weapons. These Iraqis, on Paul Bremmer's watch, spend a few million on shoddy, inappropriate equipment, clothing and weapons and then skip the country with the rest, one of them now living in Paris and another in an Arab state. These last two moronic moves by the administration will cost the taxpayer about one and a half billion. Right now, Cheney is sitting on documents that most likely hold information that would show criminal behavior by Bush and Cheney. Cheney is refusing to turn these over to proper authorities. Smart move. He could be dead of old age before the authorities get around to getting their hands on these documents, which probably contain offences by the White House which are either impeachable, criminal, or both, which if turned over now could mean jail time for Bush and Cheney. You need to buy two or three good books on what happened. Bob Woodward has written three books, including "State of Denial" and "Plan of Attack", that should walk you through most of what I have told you, but I don't believe you would know the truth if it bit you on the buttock. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. If I ever decide I want to hear more tales like yours, I will go to the nearest state mental hospital for an earful. I am through trying to reason with you, and future posts from you to me will be mostly ignored. The post of No Illusions above tells me that you will have lots of support from the moron community, but no one on this blog with a brain is going to agree with you. You are a complete waste of time.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:37 PM)

Desmond, I wasn't aware that we were still on the hunt for WMD's in Iraq however it would come as no surprise. I would have to say that doesn't make the current administration delusional so much as desperately grasping at any straw no matter how slim to salvage something from this debacle.

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:48 PM)

Why thank you JIrby, I guess maybe I am a moron because I like to believe that the rules and laws we have in place apply to everyone not just a select few. However with some of the things inflicted on the Ameican people by pols from both sides of the aisle in my lifetime and the incredible lack of accountabilty by either party I could see where that belief would lead many to think I am of low intelligance.

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:02 PM)

No Illusions, guess that is why our Vice-President and our President still links al Quida to 9/11 to this day.He has no viable intelligence on the ground, in Iraq, and he never did when we led our country into the occupation of another country based on all those illusions(or perhaps, all those fears we had of Lord Voldermort).

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:25 PM)

Desmond, I agree that the lack of intelligence along with the mis-representation and mis-interpretation of the intelligence we did have which led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq was completely negligent. Having said that I have no doubts that Al Queida was responsible for 9/11. As an aside Lord who?

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:45 PM)

Jirby.Being a ''nutcase''is a fortunate matter of opinion. You are dodging the issue. NONE of the instances you have mentioned makes any case for ''breaking the law''. If you do not intend to ''go over everything''with legal citation then you are wasting my time. Get with it man. A full investigation by not only the Justice Dept and the Civil Rights Commission headed by a leftwinger to boot, as well as that conducted by no fewer than five separate news agencies found no evidence of ''voter disenranchisement''in Dade at the conclusion of the 2000 Election, or during. You forget that the 10th Amendment argument by Gore was struck down on a 6-3 vote by the USSC. There are NOT this many Republican-appointees sitting on this bench. Not then, not now.[how the hell this makes the case for ''breaking every law''escapes me,as the highest court in America laid down its decision.Not a bunch of pro-Gore whiners whose closest contact with the Constitution was ABCs old SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK]. Do pals of any administration recieve favour for their actions?Damned right they do and up till now it is DEMOCRATS who are the worst offenders [running ahead of GOP lawmakers], with dozens of scions of top Dem congressmen and women serving on staffs,heading lobbying firms that are favoured by their parent lawmakers, and actually crafting policy[as was the case of Feinsteins husband and Reids children], which later benefited these families. What laws are being broken here Jirby? Be specific. You are not engaging in fact. You have brought forth nothing more than OPINION. Where is your evidence that Bush and Cheney ''got''subordinates to nail Plame? Where is it that they ''manufactured lies'' that were otherwise embraced by the current critics of the administration BEFORE Bush was even president?? Pass to Iraq, and there is little doubt that many of the ''moves''made by the administration can be rightly viewed as ''moronic''. But are these illegal? We will make the case here that leftwinger George Soros is making more off Halliburton than Cheney or Bush ever did and that Feinsteins[D-Ca] husband raked in millions off of the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Why would I rely upon a mere author[Woodward,whose books have been riddled with error before], to make a case of ''illegality''eminating from the administration? I have a better author for you. His name was TS Elliot and in his cautionary poem ''The Hollow Men'',he specifically warned against enduring the verbal slings and arrows of pseudo-intellectual featherweights whose ''voices,when whispered together,are quiet and meaningless''.He was describing you Jirby.Now.About those fact-based legal specifics........

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:49 PM)

It appears the conservatives have shifted from defending Bush's policies and actions to attacking the very notion that anyone in politics ever behaves ethically. Apparently, this is their new strategy for avoiding accountability for giving us Bush/Cheney. Welcome to a new direction in conservative America: surrender to low expectaions, Putin style governance and the debasement of our American ideals. What would Reagan say?

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:55 PM)

Gary:You are alleging that Libby was acting on the ''behalf''of Bush.You have no evidence of this.Even Libbys chief inquisitor,Fitzgerald,found no such connection.Presidents make controversial pardons all of the time.They are seen by one wing as excreable and damnable,supported by another wing.Yet those of us who have been down this controversial pardon road before,have never descended to the most unpardonable sin of all.That of labeling other Americans ''un-American'' by the base virtue of their anguished emotions.In this,one becomes no better than those who play Gaza games,accusing one of not being ''Muslim''enough,or those whose religious or ideological purity is judged by those who have no business meting out such qualifications as to who consists of being a ''real''[anything],and who does not.Such judgements in and of themselves are more harmful to the fortunes of the Republic than any terrorist attack.You are not building a better nation.You are tearing it down.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:00 PM)

No Illusions, the 9/11 Commission did not find a link between al-Queda and Iraq.Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, has put a hold on any bill going forward in the Senate concerning an implementation of the 9/11 commision findings.He says he wants to know how the Homeland Security Department would spend the money. Say What?

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:01 PM)

Lee - I have enough facts to last you a few months.
Bob Woodward's State of Denial and Bush at War.
You and the other Bush lovers are America's enemies.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:18 PM)

Desmond, thats exactly why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. By diverting resources to a war and occupation that should have never been this administration has not only given these terrorist a recruiting boost but has enabled them to change their organization and expand in other areas of the world (Pakistan, Afghanistan,South America, etc.)

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:33 PM)

So, Senator DeMint, why do you have a "hold" on the procedure going forward in the Senate about implimententing the findings from the 9/11 commision.Are you suddenly tracking the "money"?

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:43 PM)

Amy, I wouldn't go so far as to say all pols behave in an unethical manner. However I would say that if you were to swing the proverbial dead cat in a room full of pols (both parties) the chances of hitting one that has never behaved unethically would be slim to none. I think anybody thats honest with themselves can see that neither party is beyond reproach.

No Illusions, Somewhere,Virginia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:43 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=255173