Commuting sentences for terrorists

Dastardly... just dastardly. That Bush... letting his "bud" off the hook for jail time by commuting Scooter's sentence. What's next? Commuting or pardons for terrorists?

Nope... that's the Clinton's job. August, 1999. Commuted sentences for "16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terror group behind some 130 bombings, including one that killed four people at New York's Fraunces Tavern in 1975. ".

The House did one of their infamous non-binding resolutions votes, passing 311 to 41 condemning the Presidential action. And where was our now esteemed Speaker Pelosi? Ooops... too late to vote "no" condemnation with her 41 Dem pals because she showed up late for work.

Thanks to Opinion Journals Best of the Web for this stroll thru history. Read in entirety, including Ms. Pelosi's comments INRE the 1999 commuted sentences by Clinton with her statements on Scooter's commute today.

And oh yes... right, Hillary. Clinton pardons/commutes were "simply routine". The kind of routine that helped prove to terrorists that the US under Clinton was a nation of wussy leaders who cow towed to terrorism, and the kind of routine we can no longer afford.

The Time-Wasting Congress... boy don't that say it all?

Who needs an article when the headline says it all?? The Investors Business Daily editorial today covers a lot of territory, chastising the latest "transparent" Congress. But in fact, the beefs don't even scratch the surface.

Border security (not amnesty first... shut the door THEN address who's here, you bozos...), the still boring non-story of fired US attorneys, and down to the unmentioned, but still on my mind, funding of the troops.... Congress deftly avoids the real work and issues, opting instead to work the press machine and speaketh on whatever the anti-Bush fare issue of the day.

The goal? Lots of face time on the round of daily talking head spots. Evidently all eyes are still fixed on the last prize... the WH in 2008. And real work be damned.

Today they got a real bone tossed their way - the Scooter Libby commuted sentence ... probably good for another couple of 24/7 weeks of media and pol headshaking and tongue clucking on the talk shows. It will also get the Wilson's back out of mothballs for another 15 minutes of fame. Most of us haven't even missed the not-so-dynamic couple.

Indicative of coverage to come started with a WH press conference with Tony Snow, fueled by an indignant collection of correspondents starving for another scandal. Far from their minds was facts and history... that the President did not pardon Libby, but merely commuted his sentence, leaving the financial penalties and loss of attorney income in place. And, of course, the fact that this is all within legal means and a power exercised by WH admins in the recent past for crimes far more serious than the high crime of impeding an investigation about a "maybe" leak that the accused did not do, and no ensuing charges for crimes were found. Huh?

Lord knows, if a terrorist attack (God forbid) happens anywhere in the world and usurps the latest self righteous indignation in the press machine, they'll probably think it was staged by Bush to bump the Scooter story. Unbelievable is the mentality and thought processes with so many today.

It will be amusing to see how far the pols and media will go in pushing our short term memories of history - treading dangerously in waters muddied by (just to mention a few...) Clinton-Rich and other last twilight pardons, Sandy Berger's "pick up the trash" penalty for stealing classified docs, and Clinton-the-husband's own conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice while being investigated for sexual harassment in the Paula Jones case.

In fact, the DOJ has the extraordinarily long list of Clinton's pardons available for view to anyone. Compare this to other previous admins easily. The current admins stats are only available per press release documentation, but appears to be hovering around 47 after 6 years in office. Link here to those press releases. It's hardly a power tool Dubya's wielded as extensively as prior Presidents.

_____________________________________

UPDATE: Hillary sez Bill's pardons/commutes and grants were "simply routine". uh huh... She accuses Bush of doing this to protect his administration. Interesting concept since the leaker was Armitage... an official who was not so all fired thrilled about the Iraq liberation to begin with. So why would he attempt to discredit the Plames/Wilsons when he agrees with them? DOH!

_____________________________________

While the press and DC beltway are self-absorbed in the Plame Blame Game latest fallout, the masses never cared much one way or another. After all, Bush-Cheney-Rove was not the source of the so-called "leak" but anti-Iraq war dude, Dick Armitage. And it's not like Valerie Plame was out there doing serious undercover work in the terrorism field. She'd been outed years before.

And oh, side note... hard to get all huffy when the investigation led to no where but a Dem smile and big but brief "gotcha" for the media. Except for Kelly O'donnell, of course. She still sits in the WH Press Corp to this day, demanding over and over for someone in the WH to "apologize"... Good lord. This and a dime gets you what?

Ho hum to it all, I say... we have bigger fish to fry, folks.

As for Congress, who will be all over this like flies on a turd, is this what we pay them to do? What about the troops? What about our border security? I thought they were all afire about our ports not being secure? When it comes to important issues, Congress is actively filling up the back burner.

One can only make note of the historic low approval rating of Congress to know most of us aren't going to be fooled by the Congressional self posturing on all the BS flying around. We want results on issues... period.

One rule for Dems, another for Reps

To show the utter hyprocrisy and absolute absurdity of the cries of "foul" by the Dems on the US Atty's, a few pointed comments and quotes from the annals by the anals.

Hillary says, if elected, she'd fire all Bush attorney appointees.

"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.

"I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law," Clinton said.

She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

Interesting that the beef here is because Dems say the US Atty's were fired for "political" reasons. Also interesting is that to fire all appointees from a previous CIC of the opposing party in order to replace with all of the incoming political party doesn't pass the Dem's muster for being "political".

Huh?

If it doesn't get confusing enough as to what is clearly acceptable in Congresses' eyes, consider Arlen Specter's comment on Mar 25ths MTP. Emphasis is mine.

Listen, they serve at the pleasure of the president, and President Clinton discharged, in one fell swoop, all 93. So that the president can discharge without a reason, but I think they cannot be discharged for a bad reason.

They can be discharged for *no* reason, but not for a "bad" reason. sigh... With GOP "friends" like this, who needs Dem enemies?

Truly double speak from a forked tongue pol here. Does anyone think that logic would play out in the private sector? Fire someone for no reason is a guaranteed lawsuit in the making. Having a reason may be debatable, but no reason??

Naturally, it's that unknown (but they're hoping) "bad reason" that gives Congress the impression they have the latitude (and patriotic "duty") to conduct a witch hunt hearing, and issue subpoenas to Presidential advisers. They have no evidence that it's a "bad" reason, just suspicions. Point is, in search of the next daily scandal, they are just aghast that the President and advisers didn't advise those sorry asses in Congress about letting the eight attys go.

On the danger of subpoenas, too many are missing the importance of Congressional power at will to drag WH advisers in under oath. Bad juju precedent here. No one will ever give any kind of consultation to a President for which they can be liable, put on a stand and wait for Congress to dole whatever crime-of-the-day they're passing out like candy. Advisers will have to hold back and say less for self defense and litigation protection... much as the medical profession must do sundry, worthless tests and drive up medical bills in order to avoid malpractice suits. It's all about the CYB behavior so many industries have been driven to in our lawsuit happy society because of trial lawyers.

But let's move on to another obvious "one rule for Dems, another rule for Reps" bit. One of the fired US Attorneys was Paul McKay of the State of Washington. That would be the State where the sitting governor was put in by a margin of 129 votes. However King County itself had an approx 1800 vote discrepancy that was never accounted for. And that tally was revised several times.

So in 2005, they began the trial at the local levels... and this eventually made it to McKay's desk.

McKay stated that he had an interview at the White House - a meeting with Harriet Miers and her deputy Bill Kelly. Here's his Sunday MTP comments on that subject, and what they asked in the interview.

MR. RUSSERT: And did they ask you why you did not go forward with an investigation or with indictments?

MR. McKAY: No, they actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me. And, of course, all of the actions taken by the federal government, which were not publicly discussed, were well-known to, to my supervisors and, and those who follow our work in Washington, D.C. So I was a little surprised that they would ask me about that, since our office had carefully reviewed the evidence, and really, in the case of the 2004 governor’s election here, the lack of evidence. And the decision that I made not to go forward was a really unanimous decision with the Seattle division of the FBI. So, so from our standpoint, it wasn’t controversial from an evidentiary standpoint, even though it was very controversial in the state of Washington.

Okaaaaay.... First note here. Notice the DOJ wasn't pressing the "you didn't prosecute" accusation. They were passing on the fact that they had a lot of complaints from Republican constituents about McKay's performance. And quite frankly, me as an Oregonian watching it all, found it all pretty darned odd as well. It was a very narrow margin, unlike the 2000 Presidential election margin.

But notice the distinct attitude here. It's a non-issue with the Dems because, not only did they win the gubernatorial seat, but a Republican Presidential appointee pronounced a "lack of evidence" to continue with the trial and investigation. Say no more, say no more. Book snaps shut... tightly.

So how come the "lack of evidence" for a crime doesn't slam the book shut on Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Cheney and Rove? Apparently "lack of evidence" is only viable as a non-issue when it falls on the side of the liberal playbook. sniff.. Something truly reeks in Congress.

'nuff. Think I'll spend the evening watching "Happy Feet" instead. Grin and lower my blood pressure for awhile.

Assoc Press... new PR vehicle for Valerie Plame?

Mercy... never read such a bunk of BS amassed in one spot save in Hollywood press releases and movie trailers.

And indeed, AP writer Darlene Superville's article, "Plame to tell her story before Congress" reads more like a press release than the political "news" it claims to be. Her repackaging of "old news" is of one who seemingly desires to be a screenplay writer and not an AP journalist.

WASHINGTON — Valerie Plame's life changed the day her name appeared in a newspaper column, her job as a CIA officer exposed in black and white.

She goes before a House committee Friday as both a shadowy figure and a celebrity, with lucrative book and movie deals in the works, a magazine cover in her past and her unceremonious unmasking four years ago the subject of persistent intrigue.

Now she is lifting the veil by her own hand, and to maximum effect.

OMG.. the melodrama oozing from Superville's sappy, sad tale portrayal, cautiously dodging all facts related to the combined Wilson lies. Ahhhh... but the "poor victim me" schtick slithers on.

"Valerie wishes none of this ever happened," said Melanie Sloan, an attorney who represents Plame in the lawsuit and who directs the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "She had the life she wanted. She had the job she wanted."

Plame says she was outed to retaliate for an opinion piece Wilson wrote for The New York Times in July 2003. In it, Wilson said he had investigated claims that Niger was selling yellowcake uranium to Iraq and had found them to be without merit. Wilson also accused the Bush administration of distorting the intelligence it used as the basis for the Iraq war.

Days later, Plame's double life was secret no more, revealed in a piece by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in which he wrote that two administration officials had named her.

Last week, a federal investigation into the leak ended in guilty verdicts for Libby for lying and obstruction of justice. He was the only administration official to face criminal charges in the case.

Feel free to interject facts anywhere in here, Ms. Superville. Like, for instance, there was no crime to charge perhaps? And perhaps that Joe's claims of Niger yellowcake were not only proven wrong, but his own account actually substantiated the belief that Saddam was attempting to acquire the yellowcake?

Oh yes, let's not forget that pesky Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on that yellowcake issue that pretty much proved Wilson was a lying fool. But perhaps Ms. Superville was still graduating from journalism school in that year and is unaware. Can't tell. Obviously researching facts takes a supporting role to bleeding heart prose. So I'm quite sure that Hollywood has a place for her talents.

Then, of course, Ms. Superville prefers not discuss the Plame/Wilson lies about who sent Joe on the Niger trip to begin with. Think any of that that will be in Ms. Plame's Congressional "tell all"?


Ms. Superville casually mentions that the Wilsons were spotted having lunch with Morgan Fairchild at the Four Seasons in the past month. Any bets that Valerie's coaxing her to take the lead role in the upcoming Plame movie? ad nauseum... Maybe there's a place for you on Entertainment Tonight, Ms. Superville. Well honed paparazzi skills there.

Yes, as the headline says... Ms. Plame will be again "telling her story", milking it for as much as possible, in front of Congress. I, for one, just have to catch the moment when she decides to swear, under oath, to tell the truth. Right.... that'll be a novelty. But I certainly hope that Hollywood fame will somehow replace that "life and job she wanted". But I have to admit, the excitement of CIA desk job is a hard act to follow. zzzzzzz

And perhaps Ms. Superville is seeking a new position for herself as PR-in-chief for the new, upcoming "movie star" Plame. If it's offered, *please* take it! This crap passed off as news is a joke.