Littwin’s outrage over Libby is a joke
Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Littwin is outraged that President Bush commuted jail time for Scooter Libby (“Scooter to go behind bars? Sorry, Paris, but no way,” July 3).
Anyone who reads Littwin can see he is so biased and hypocritical as to be a joke to serious thinkers. He would rather exonerate a drunk driver who violated her prohibition from driving, even though thousands are killed and maimed each year by drunk drivers, than see Libby not serve jail time.
If perjury alone is Littwin’s beef, where was the outrage when President Clinton committed undisputed perjury and didn’t serve a jail sentence, or the lying of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who is alleged to have accepted more than $500,000 in bribes?
Maybe it is just a “lapse” of memory to fail to recall and express outrage over a sin if a Democrat is involved.
Don Ferguson, Boulder
And remember Sandy Berger stuffing top secret, highly classified documents down his pant then destroying them to protect Clinton. What happended to Berger? Not a damn thing.
Posted by John K on July 4, 2007 01:42 AMDon,
Are you the lone individual in Boulder with any common sense left? I was beginning to wonder. Good points on Littwin, he is shameful. Of course those of his ilk will be pissed off by this. I don't know why, we all saw it coming. And of course the double standards of the left will be in play at maximum volume on this. Commuting Libby is an outrage because he worked for VP Cheney and this is "political". But pardoning Marc Rich for being a HUGE campaign contributor is perfectly fine. This is the classic double standard of the left.
Just as the President has the authority and power to hire and fire ANY US Attorney he also has the authority to pardon or commute ANY criminal he wishes - for justice, for political, or for personal reasons. There are NO restrictions placed on this power in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. But watch the left (John Conyers) start hearings on this just as they did on the firing of the US Attorneys wasting more time and money on an issue that has no bearing on anything other than the left having their panties in a bunch. This is what they DO.
Anyone who has ever met Mike Litwin knows he is not only a wannabe convesationalist but is offensive in his talk, from his awful B.O. and bad breath, to the way he plays with his unkept mess of hair. Litwin exudes bias and ignorance. A typical liberal who speaks from a cold, nontolerant heart. Having a skewed outlook on an untopian outcome to things.
When confronted by common sense he runs and hides. PLaying the only game libs know, race baiting and name calling. Litwins column is only good for emergency use when you run oout of toilet paper.
Isn't there some way to put a lid on the holes people like Litwin fan, Michael, and John K keep coming out of?
They are simply too cowardly to face up to the fact the Bush insulted and diminished our system of justice by telling that system to go to hell. Bush thought thirty months was excessive. OK, what would not be excessive, George? How about one day? "Well, no, that's a bit too much for one of my minions".
Posted by Truth on July 4, 2007 07:14 AMI guess I need to officially debunk the Sandy Berger stuffed secret papers in his pants to save Clinton myth:
From those "far left Lib Moonbats at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages:
www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521
And a follow up:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534
OK?
Posted by Charles B on July 4, 2007 07:35 AMOops:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521
Posted by Charles B on July 4, 2007 07:40 AMHey truth. You've posted to 3 of the first 4 letters today, and you want to put a lid on other posters? You think this is a private domain for you, the old grouch, charles b, and bingo bongo to digitally high-five each other. Not any more son. The light is shining.
You just knew the repugs would use this Libby thing to drag out Clintons history again, since it it easier than dealing with the present and at the same time obfuscates what bush/cheney are up to. But clearly 2 wrongs make a right with repugs, as they have created a terrorist state (where none existed) in Iraq, called it a democracy & left most its inhabitants actually yearning for the days under a butcher named Saddam. Hard to believe anyone could make Saddam look good, but the US pulled it off.
Posted by hikingartist on July 4, 2007 08:22 AMCharles B: Your implication is that those websights hold THE TRUTH. People, check them out and you will see that Charles B's "sources", which aciduously quotes in all his diatrabs, are as meaningful and Quotworthy as those of Ward Churchall.
Posted by [good works] on July 4, 2007 08:24 AMIt would be interesting to know what 08:24AM thought about those websites after he had read them. But no danger of that. It would take too long for him to act intelligently.
Posted by Truth on July 4, 2007 09:35 AMoh all mighty and wonderful truth do you know anything other that naming calling and showing your ass all the time?
your mama and chas b's should be a shamed they didnt opt for an abortion.
Charles B. so the conservs go on mythadventures all the time. Then you show up their mythology and they ignore you.
SSDD
Posted by Sharon B. on July 4, 2007 09:54 AMR,
While I do appreciate being listed in the company of "Truth", "Charles B.", "Bongo Skank", and "Sharon B.", among others - since they are the intelligent, thoughtful, and reaonable debaters usually found here - I really wonder where you get the idea that I have ever wanted to put a lid on anyone else's postings.
Indeed, back when we had an individual whose principal appearance consisted of profanity and insult - usually repeated 4, 5, 6, or more times . . . for . . . "emphasis" (?) . . . or whatever - I specifically made it clear that my position is, was, and hopefully always shall be, that he, too was fully entitled to post, whatever it be he wanted to post. Give the person his/her say. That's what free speech is really all about.
I did suggest that, for matters of space, if nothing else, the Hall Monitor might eliminate the long string of the same short remarks - a fairly reasonable editorial function - But by no means then, now, or anytime in the future, did I, nor do I, suggest that anyone be kept from the page as such, for any reason whatsoever.
Shine your light as you please. But - just as a suggestion - do try to have at least a small grain of truth in your rants, once in a while anyway. It might even help you get some attention - even, possibly, a bit of respect - for what you have to say.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 11:01 AMThe information posted about Libby only dealt with the 5 papers that we know he took. The fact is that we don't know how many he took. We will never know.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on July 4, 2007 11:08 AM"oh all mighty and wonderful truth do you know anything other that naming calling and showing your ass all the time?
your mama and chas b's should be a shamed they didnt opt for an abortion.
Posted by on July 4, 2007 09:39 AM"
Thanks for the compliment and for your undying support. But you should know, despite the rumors to the contrary, that I am not really God. In fact, I don't even have a mustache, much less a beard.
As for your abortion comment, you'll have to take that up with Mama; I swear that I was in no way consulted.
Why don't the left and the right take a break and understand this day is about the Bill of Rights and all of us who uphold them. If all the right and left can do is act like two tomcats fighting over who gets the she cat in heat while she gets bored with all the male posturingall and sneaks away to have a tryst with a reasonable feline, then the point is missed that no one cares really who did what and when. I thought it was women who had such long memories that they can bring up points about ancient trivial things that all men long ago forgot because those things have no significative purpose to the present. Now I see that political arguement creates that same ability.
As for me I'm going to go drink very cold beer whilst tending the grilling of really great steaks and pondering the questionable wisdom of those who think there really is some sort of a definable difference between left and right politicians.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 12:20 PMThe right is still clinging onto the Clinton presidency six years after it ended in order to justify the deeds of the present presidency. This is truly sad and pathetic from a sad and pathetic political ideology.
Posted by Sean on July 4, 2007 02:50 PMOne of Bush's biggest mistakes in his presidentcy is not immediately pardoning libby.The others are npt jailing democrats treasonist.
Posted by bart on July 4, 2007 03:02 PMOne of Bush's biggest mistakes in his presidentcy is not immediately pardoning libby.The others are npt jailing democrats treasonist.
Posted by bart on July 4, 2007 03:02 PMBart would make a great official in a dictatorship. Can't handle the opposition and fear that they might take the leadership role of the country, no problem, just label them as traitors and lock them up. Maybe you can find a job in China jailing dissidents.
Posted by Sean on July 4, 2007 03:09 PMBbbbbuuuuttttttt, bbbuuutttttt, bbbbbuuuuutttttttt, Clinton did it first!!! Whimper, snivel, snort.
Posted by [Paolo] "shameless republiCON" on July 4, 2007 03:34 PMMy dog is blushing over the degree of loyaly of these self-professed conservatives have to the current administration that they are still willing to excuse the lack of integrity and competence of Bush and his band of merry-men. The GOP has pulled America into the sewer and all they have to say for themselves is to try and convince us that the sewer is a fine place to be.
Posted by [merry man] on July 4, 2007 05:52 PMBush is an excellent example of the adage:"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"
Posted by gadfly on July 4, 2007 06:25 PMBush is an excellent example of the adage:"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"
Posted by gadfly on July 4, 2007 06:25 PMHas anyone figured out why Charles B thinks a link to an opinion column translates into verification of facts?
Posted by KW on July 5, 2007 10:02 AMOh, enough with the "Clinton did it too" rhetoric! Wrong is wrong, period. If Clinton perjured himself and was proven guilty in a court of law, then yes he should have been punished. Just as Scooter Libby should have been punished. And stuff the "harsh sentence" rhetoric too-- three out of four obstruction verdicts lead to sentences at least as harsh as Libby's.
Libby is a criminal. Period. He broke the law and was proven guilty in a court of law. Period. His appeal was rejected. Period. There is not an excuse anywhere in the world that will alter the truth of what happened, no matter how hard you Bush apologists want to spin this. Bush exonerated Libby to protect his administration's posterior, and avoid any dealmaking between Fitzgerald and Libby.
The whole "he did it too" partisan rhetoric we've been hearing particularly out of the right-wing is infantile, immature, and pathetic. Your party is supposed to be the "Party of Ethics"-- start showing it already and quit making excuses.
Posted by Dan on July 5, 2007 10:10 AMWhat seems to be totally missed by many on this site is that it’s not about “Clinton did it too” or about “Clinton did it first.” It’s about the hypocrisy surrounding the discussion. Leftists are outraged about Bush’s decision, but were quiet about Clinton’s perjury and also very quiet about Clinton’s pardoning of numerous criminals at the end of his presidency. Now that a president is in office they disagree with (at every single possible opportunity), Democrats and the far left suddenly are upset with the commuting of the sentence of a criminal. But they are the tolerant ones. Just ask them.
Posted by Christina on July 5, 2007 11:19 AMThis post has a "chime-in" from everyone under the sun. The only person missing is Brian Stuckey. The poor sod must have exhausted his almost-limitless quota of posted letters.
Posted by Beavis on July 5, 2007 11:59 AMChristina,
I agree that Clinton's perjury and late-term pardons were scandalous. So what is your opinion on Libby's commutation?
Dan,
I hate to sound like a coward, but I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other about the commutation. I think Bush’s statement about it was pretty strange by saying that the sentence was “harsh.” Gee, we wouldn’t want to put harsh sentences on those who obstruct justice and perjure themselves, now would we.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the so called “lie” that Libby supposedly told was about a conversation he had with Tim Russert about two years prior. It would be pretty hard to remember every detail of a conversation with a person that took place two years ago. And from what I have been hearing and reading, Russert got the information about Valarie Plame from someone other than Libby before he even talked to Libby about her. So, how it came to be Libby’s fault that her involvement with the CIA was leaked is pretty suspect.
The entire point of Don Ferguson’s letter is about the pretense of virtue of those who looked the other way when one of theirs commits a crime but then put a microscope on their political opponents when they commit a crime. That is what Mike Litwin does quite frequently. What makes it worse is that Litwin seems to love doing that. He’s a political weasel.
Christina:
What you're saying is that you think you know more about it than the jury that convicted him and the judge who sentenced him.
Do you?
Otherwise, wouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt and therefore hold the position that the sentence was not "harsh"?
Posted by Charles B on July 5, 2007 09:27 PMsharon b.,isn't time to break out our dresses and take a stroll through capital hill?
Posted by Drew on July 6, 2007 02:49 PMkeith, is that you with a new moniker (that means "name")?
Posted by Paulie on July 6, 2007 03:28 PM