Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Having children doesn't give anyone special treatment. There are a lot of fathers in prison. He should of thought of his children and his country before he perjured himself.

hahaha, wow. no remorse.
 
struckpx said:


Cheney yes, Bush no. Should the middle man who is covering up for Cheney with two young children have to sit in jail for two years over this, no.

Now answer the second question. Since you agree that Cheney's actions could be grounds for impeachment:

Would you also agree that preventing an investigation from bringing to justice those who were ultimately responsible for a crime is a cowardly act and shows an unhealthy amount of contempt for justice and the rule of law?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Why should I have remorse? Why do you have remorse? Is it only because you are a conservative?

far from. i don't affiliate with parties. i just call them as i see them and bashing bush on this is absurd. go after cheney. bush is doing his job and his right that the constitution grants him.
 
struckpx said:


far from. i don't affiliate with parties. i just call them as i see them and bashing bush on this is absurd. go after cheney. bush is doing his job and his right that the constitution grants him.

Didn't say anything about a party.

Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you are doing your job. Don't confuse the two.

Call them as you see them? That's funny...


But tell me, because you didn't answer the question... Why do you feel remorse?
 
struckpx said:


far from. i don't affiliate with parties. i just call them as i see them and bashing bush on this is absurd. go after cheney. bush is doing his job and his right that the constitution grants him.

:eyebrow:
the constitution did not grant him the right to lie to us in the state of the union address in 2003, and the loads of other times he lied to the public, just so he can pursue his own selfish interests.
 
struckpx said:

i just call them as i see them and bashing bush on this is absurd. go after cheney. bush is doing his job and his right that the constitution grants him.


That's such a weak excuse. Does the circumstances in which he used his constitutional power mean absolutely nothing to you?

What if Libby had murdered someone? Well, Bush was only using his constitutional powers when he commuted the sentence, so I don't see what the fuss is about... :rolleyes:

And apparently you still don't see the link. By commuting Libby's sentence, we can't go after Cheney on this. Still think Bush is squeaky clean?
 
struckpx said:


far from. i don't affiliate with parties. i just call them as i see them and bashing bush on this is absurd. go after cheney. bush is doing his job and his right that the constitution grants him.

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT HE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO USE COMMUTATION.

We are disputing using it to COVER UP CHENEY. It's not OK that he is using it to cover up a crime. Just because he's friends/co-workers with Cheney means he should cover up Cheney's crime?

And calling them as you see them doesn't work when you don't open your eyes. It's hard to see with your eyes shut.
 
because libby contradicted himself and now is lying about cheney's involvement. he hasn't come right out and said "cheney ordered this", but he had said conflicting statements in his web of lies to protect him.
 
phillyfan26 said:


And calling them as you see them doesn't work when you don't open your eyes. It's hard to see with your eyes shut.


so now i can only view it as your way or it isn't correct?
 
struckpx said:



so now i can only view it as your way or it isn't correct?

No. I'm saying that you don't read all the posts and don't look up all the facts.

Please address the rest of that post you quoted.
 
phillyfan26 said:


No. I'm saying that you don't read all the posts and don't look up all the facts.

Please address the rest of that post you quoted.

hahaha, ok. No comment. It's not worth arguing.
 
struckpx said:


hahaha, ok. No comment. It's not worth arguing.

You've admitted this, though, so how am I incorrect?

Please address the rest of my post you quoted before.
 
phillyfan26 said:


You've admitted this, though, so how am I incorrect?

Please address the rest of my post you quoted before.

I don't want to get into it. I am not going to comment anymore on this matter. It is a waste of time arguing over nothing. And I could write out the history of every event in this case. That still wouldn't be enough evidence for some here. So, go ahead and continue w/ your "Impeach Bush" slogans.
 
struckpx said:


I don't want to get into it. I am not going to comment anymore on this matter. It is a waste of time arguing over nothing. And I could write out the history of every event in this case. That still wouldn't be enough evidence for some here. So, go ahead and continue w/ your "Impeach Bush" slogans.

It's not nothing, though, that's the thing. It's a government cover up.

By saying, "I don't want to get into it," do you mean that you have no rebuttal for my point?
 
struckpx said:


I don't want to get into it. I am not going to comment anymore on this matter. It is a waste of time arguing over nothing. And I could write out the history of every event in this case. That still wouldn't be enough evidence for some here. So, go ahead and continue w/ your "Impeach Bush" slogans.

It probably would do you good to step away for awhile. Just for sanity sake.

A government cover up isn't a little thing. And because you keep saying that, I really don't think you grasp what's happened, and I'm positive you couldn't write out the whole history for your facts have been incorrect in many of your posts.
 
Lila64 said:
Is there any hope for this country?

as scummy as it may be it's bush's constitutional right to do so, a right that has been used scummily in the past by presidents from both democrats and republicans, will be used in the future in scummy ways by both parties.

heck, reagan pardoned george steinbrenner... GEORGE STEINBRENNER! if we can surivive that, i think we'll be okay on this one.
 
Ah I'd forgotten that, Steinbrenner indeed...a dark day for sure. And I think Don King got pardoned on a MURDER conviction by the at-the-time governor (Ohio I think?).

You know, I hadn't looked at this thread in 3 days and amazingly enough it actually managed to go downhill :( I think my favorite is "Bush wasn't involved in the cover-up, other than the commutal". Great. He's not involved in Iraq either, except for that lil' ol' war thingy. Or, to bring it back to Clinton because everyone's had a great time bringing his name up in this one...Clinton wasn't involved with that BJ either, except for the getting his d...never mind.

Unbelievable.
 
it's so good to discover that Bush, our Christian President, has finally discovered mercy and compassion!

he didn't have any as governor of Texas:

[q]In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.[/q]
 
I still don't understand why a president has this right to commute and pardon people...it is like a big 'fuck you' to the court system and the rule of law. Hmm I wonder if the pm of the UK has any similar rights....it just seems a completely daft rule.
 
This is the exact reason why I support our(UK, Canada, Oz, NZ) constitutional monarchy system.

Our shared Queen has power, but doesn't use it. The government(PM) uses the power but doesn't hold it. Our head of state and head of government are 2 different people. Democracy working at it's best. This could be another topic though.
 
Slipstream said:
This is the exact reason why I support our(UK, Canada, Oz, NZ) constitutional monarchy system.

Our shared Queen has power, but doesn't use it. The government(PM) uses the power but doesn't hold it. Our head of state and head of government are 2 different people. Democracy working at it's best. This could be another topic though.

So you are saying that our democracy doesn't work? I find it to be the best in the world regarding checks and balances. The President has some power, Congress has some, and the Judicial Branch has some. They all even out.

This ploy by Congress, regarding today's actions, is merely a way for them to get the pressure off themselves, for they have been able to do nothing for their first year in office. In return, they try to keep the heat up on Bush to offset their lack of victories in Capitol Hill.

Our democracy is still the finest ever.
 
struckpx said:

The President has some power, Congress has some, and the Judicial Branch has some. They all even out.



the current administration isn't terribly fond of the division of powers or checks and balances, especially our vice president. after all, it gets in his way of adequately defending the country as he and he alone sees fit, thusly, we've seen the greatest expansion of executive powers -- all justified by the purposefuly vague "war" on terror -- in all of our lifetimes, and perhaps since the civil war.


Our democracy is still the finest ever.


i might have agreed with you in 1999. but no one can reasonably say that 2001-2009 were banner years in the history of American democracy.

no one.
 
struckpx -- "So you are saying that our democracy doesn't work?"

I never said your democracy doesn't work. I said, this current pardon issue with Libby is why I prefer our constitutional monarchy system over the US system.

The example being, our Queen can only grant pardons on advice of the gov't. Pardoning power in the US is granted to the President.
 
Slipstream said:
struckpx -- "So you are saying that our democracy doesn't work?"

I never said your democracy doesn't work. I said, this current pardon issue with Libby is why I prefer our constitutional monarchy system over the US system.

The example being, our Queen can only grant pardons on advice of the gov't. Pardoning power in the US is granted to the President.

k. sorry about the confusion.

i just don't want to make it seem that our president has dictative powers, because that is far from the truth. almost every power he has can be overruled in some way.
 
Back
Top Bottom