When Valarie Plame’s name was leaked to the press, Bush told the American people that he would hold accountable the person that had leaked her name. Of course, that changed drastically over time. While Libby may be viewed as having been a puppet in outing Valarie Plame, he was involved, and it was illegal.
And yet, after judges told whiney little Scooter that he had to go to jail, Bush did a contortion act that would make Gumby envious.
The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.
But, some of us look upon Bush commuting Libby’s sentence, as obstruction of justice, and he must be investigated.
This is yet another reason, in a long list of reasons, that Impeachment should never have been removed from the table, and must be put back into play.
By the way, do not think that Fred Thompson is going to be any better than Bush at the job of president. He is just as devoid of ethical standards as the people currently inhabiting the WH. Don’t forget FDT led several fund raisers for Scooters defense fund.
What, are you retarded? Libby did not leak Plame’s name to anyone. Plame’s name was already out there and it was Richard Armitage that “leaked” it anyway. Geez you loonies really need to get a grip and deal with reality.
[...] always, Crone Speaks: This is yet another reason, in a long list of reasons, that Impeachment should never have been [...]
And another reason Bush should be impeached is that the White House spreads lies about how Armitage did it and therefore no one else could have done it, even though it’s well known that more than one White House source was involved in the conspiracy to blow the cover of a CIA oeprative. Jeez.
Pardon me, I meant to say, “And another reason they should all be impeached….”
Here’s what I’m trying to understand. When I hear someone use the “Libby wasn’t the leaker” argument, I want to know if it’s because they believe it’s impossible for two or more people to leak something at the same time. Which appears to be the case here. Libby and Armitage both leaked the same information, though with different motivations, at roughly the same time.
I’m wondering if it’s more of a reflexive statement, repeating something they’ve read or heard elsewhere.
For example, when you go to a baseball game, people will say things like “The Red Sox are going to fade in August.” It’s not that anyone knows that’s going to happen. It’s more like something you hear repeated, and it takes on its own folk wisdom.