Er...no. He was just impeached. If we was convicted, he would have actually been removed from office.

Which reminds me of why I never want to live in America - you have a grandiose national scandal after your president gets a blowjob from his secretary and impeach him, and yet you reelect another one after he starts a pointless war.

Yet our country still has a higher GDP than yours. And I don't even have to know where you're from to say that.

Uh, he was impeached because he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Then he ordered for the bombing of Iraq so as to delay the impeachment vote until a slew of newly elected Democrats began their terms. Clinton wasn't much of a saint either.

Quantity != Quality.

Yeah, it's true the U.S. does have a really low quality GDP :.(

I meant the quality of the nation, but ya'know.

Haha, zing!

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I know better and worse are rather subjective on certain levels, but Bush to me had a very unsatisfactory performance. Nothing he did outside of the initial action of going to Afghanistan to target Al-Queda at its root has my approval. From his faith based initiative crap, to the amnesty bull, to the Iraq conflagration and numerous other shaky actions, I'm just not impressed with his leadership, to say the least. While he is not 100% to blame for any of these things, he was definitely a contributing factor. Strangely enough I'd still vote for him instead of the socialists who think that throwing money at problems blindly will work.

So, since I'm wrong (unless that was a strange way of agreeing with me), correct my aberrant thought processes.

Eh, I just wanted clarification. I've probably said too much already, I despise debates on politics on the internet, quite frankly I don't know why I said anything in the first place. It's all just clarification.

my mistake. i used the wrong word there. yes, impeached but not removed from office.



I'm not trying to excuse Clinton of anything. to be honest for the most part i detested the guy. im just sick of people in the government playing bull***** games. i know, i know... it always has happened and it always will...

i'd much rather live without a rain season than live with you, do native americans have a Cancer Dance for the seasons they're blessed with rain?

What most people fail to understand is that when the investigation of the leak began it was already known who the leaker was. Armitage. Libby was not charged for anything to do with the leak. His testimony was contradicted by Russert's and they chose to believe that Libby's was a lie. Even if you think his testimony was a lie it is obvious that he in no way impeded the investigation since the facts surrounding the leak were already known. The only question was how and when Libby learned of the facts of the matter.

It should also be pointed out that "leaking" her identity was not a crime and the "leaker" was never charged.

Also, the $ is becoming more and more worthless. Euros FTW.

£ > €

Wait, what? Bush Pardoned a guy to save his ***. Period. I don't give a flying **** if other presidents have done it, I don't give a **** if it's something everyone does. I really don't know why any of you would think that those are pertinent pieces of information? The fact of the matter is that bush, cheney, and the entire administration has been caught, more than this occasion, flat out lying. We've caught them in these numerous lies, and it's simply NOT being enforced by our system correctly.

Britain's Prime Minster threw in the towel on pure dignity alone. The administration needs to be put to an end, and we need political reform. This isn't even a partisan issue. This isn't a "damn republicans," it's a "damn system not protecting us from our 'leader.'"

Agreed. That's why I mentioned if the people complaining about the pardon have any clue about what Libby did. If this is such a violation and a threat to the dignity of the system, why is Armitage (the source of the leak) not an issue. People seem to be confusing what Libby did and what Armitage did.

IMO, people are just looking for someone to charge everything with (in the media and public). Unfortunatly, people are looking at the issue of the pardon and saying how the President has ruined the justice system, when they don't even understand the case. If there's such hate for the corruption of the administration, why does no one focus on Armitage?

To make an analogy, this would be like everyone attacking Arthur Anderson for destroying evidence against Enron, while ignoring Enron being the one to actually commit fraud.

The majority of the public don't understand the case, but they understand that Libby = bad. What he did (obstruction of justice), in my opinion is worse than the actual leak, and is the problem that the public has with this administration (obstruction of justice and public knowledge)

The real issue at stake here is that the president just pardoned a man from his own administration who was convicted of a crime he definitely did commit (Keep in mind, he was not convicted of the leak, just covering it up and lying about it). This sends a message to the people in his administration that you can do whatever you want and Walker, Texas Ranger will cover your ***.

Lie, steal, cheat the public, it doesn't matter. Bushie's got ya covered.

I love bush

(I'm going to hell :()

Not again.

How did Libby obstruct justice? His version of what he knew and when differed from somebody else's version. All that after the source of the leak was already known to be a State Department flunky and nobody associated with the White House. The entire investigation and prosecution was a sham.

President Bush has not yet pardoned Libby (although he should). He commuted the jail sentence. The conviction still stands unless Libby manages to get it rightly overturned on appeal. If he fails to do that the president should definitely pardon him.

OMG GUYZ THE TERRISTS ARE AFER US OH NOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination in '08, I officially hate the republican party. I wish Kerry had gotten elected in 04 just so Paul would have a better chance today.

I'm pretty Paul's chances are better (as depressing as that is, since they're still very bad) thanks to the George W. Bush Experience. Kerry would just have made everyone long for another ordinary Republican.

Bush commuting the sentence is a completely predictable act. He had no rational reason to not commute the sentence. Note that rational here means that he has preferences and he will always try to achieve his highest preferences.

The real problem is that the President has the ability to pardon and commute sentences. I think alpha1 said it best. Pardons are crazy.

pardons are not crazy. The pardon is a check on the power of the judiciary

Agreed entirely, but they've been used as political tools instead, and it's defeated the point of that check. There needs to be a more proficient, and irresponsible-proof check that can be enacted. Retrial? I don't know, but even Clinton, one of my favorites, pissed me off with his pardoning bull****. It's nothing but a tool for a party to wipe their *** before going out of office.

The pardon is "a" check on the judiciary, not "the" check on the judiciary. If you ask me, appointing justices (although with senate approval) is enough power for the President over the courts.

The ability to pardon individuals is not a particularly strong check anyway since it does not overturn the conviction which means the case can still be cited by future courts. This is not to say that the pardon has insignificant consequences, but it's not a particularly good check as such.

The fear of impeachment is not a threat to the President's pardon power unless his use is unlawful.

It is possible that the process has political influence, but if you remember the Clinton trial, they still had to bring formal charges against him as examined by the independent prosecutor (Kenneth Star) and approved by the judicial committee. It's not a political-free zone (but neither is the judicial branch), but it is still a criminal process.


Admittedly, in this particular case, impeachment might actually be a consideration since President Bush has some sketchy connections to the crime itself. But using a pardon in a case where the President is involved is not the same as using it to pardon a friend of the President. I still think the pardon is at best weak and at worst a powerful tool. Madison's normative arguments don't fit what has actually happened with the pardon empirically.

Based on memory and a quick scan of wikipedia for confirmation, Clinton's perjury wasn't entirely irrelevant. He did it during a law suit against him for sexual harassment.

oh... haha! What a sucker

None of your arguments here provide a reason why pardon changes any of that. For a example, let's say Korematsu was pardoned by the President for the crime of avoiding internment during WW2. That would not stop later courts from citing Korematsu v. the United States.

That's actually a bad example though because Korematsu controversially upholds executive power, but you get the idea.

Remember: pardon != overturn. Courts get their power through precedent. That's how they "make" law.

Actually, that was Monica...

ehehe