[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

DADdoser, your posts are welcomed as being both well reasoned and as objective as possible given the potentially contentious nature of this thread. The problem with this type of debate is that it all too often generates into 'taking sides' with the regrettable consequence that facts and logic become the first casualties .

Now, see, that's quite an interesting insight into human psychology. The one person in this thread obviously motivated by very strong emotion (rage at the Bush administration because of its abandonment of conservative principles) gets a free ticket to the "reasoned and objective" side by cut-and-pasting one-sided, obviously biased stuff he found on the internet somewhere. Dang, I wish I'd thought of that (Ann Coulter to the rescue?)!

I don't like Bush either (for some of the same reasons DaDoser mentions), but that won't prevent me from seeing that this case is so blatantly politically driven that it makes me sick. BTW, so think 12 prominent law scholars (from right-wing Robert Bork to left-wing Alan Dershowitz) who wrote judge Walton asking him to consider granting an appeal (their effort was met with a degree of scorn which I found quite unbecoming of Walton's office, if not downright contemptuous. It certainly gave his little game away, though).

In any event. we can't resolve this thing in this kind of forum. Far more knowlegeable people than us have debated this on both sides of the fence and not come to the same conclusion. The point I was making is that yes, some of us can honestly dissagree with the verdict in this case and support the president's decision to commute Libby's sentence. If someone doesn't like this (people dissagreeing with them), too bad. Get over your emotions.

FVD

[DADoser]

Former Viper Driver -

This case is definitely "political" in the way BOTH sides are using it.

However, could you throw out some facts/evidence that show this case was "politically driven?"
(Those in power/control of this case seem to have all been Republicans and/or Republican appointments. the Democrats had no control in this case or of its outcome.)

By the way - I don't care for the Bush Administration - but I wouldn't charactorize my emotions to the level of "rage" as you have labeled me. I think they are lazy; myoptic; and incompetent - and that is based on pretty objective evidence.

Regarding the "commuting" of Libby's sentence - Bush just should have been honest (and inconsistent with his judicial record/perspective) and said he was commuting the sentence for political reasons.

Libby's sentence wasn't too harsh for someone convicted by a jury for the same crime. Also, its not "normal" to commute a sentence BEFORE any of the sentence is served as well as while the case is still in the appeals process. Without adding another exhausting post with all the details - While Bush has the power in this area to do what he did (and more) - his reasoning and process are inconsistent with his own record/behavior. This from the "rule of law" President.