Commutation granted for Scooter Libby

cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/ … index.html

What do you think this means? I’m not into politics enough to make an educated statement, but a few of you I know are, and I’d like to hear opinions.

When Confucius entered a village, the people made sure to introduce him to a man named Upright Gong. You see, Upright Gong was so righteous that when his father stole a sheep, Upright Gong went and told the authorities that his father had done so.

Upon hearing this new, a profound sadness overtook Confucius, and he commented that where he is from, an upright son covers for the sins of his father and that an upright father covers for the sins of his son.

This is one of the very few areas where I agree with Bush. Not personally, personally, I think that Libby got what was coming, but had Bush not at least commuted the sentence (if not out-and-out pardoned it) his immorality would have been cemented on all levels.

Say what you will about Bush, but he is as loyal as political savvy will allow, and I respect that, if nothing else about his administration.

it was a process crime at best…

do you really think the left wing socialist totalitarians will cry too loud about sending a purgerer to prison?

-Imp

Scooter should have never been dragged through the mud. He was doing what any good politician would have done. He didn’t deserve to have his name smeared.

It might be a commutation instead of a pardon, but that is fine, 2 years of
probation is nothing to take for Lewis Libby, and a quarter of million dollars is nothing to a multimillionaire. As for finding work on account of
being a convicted felon, I really don’t think he will have a problem there.
Thank you President George W. Bush. As for Hillary calling Bush a crony,
their is no bigger crony anywhere than Mr. Bill Clinton.

My two cents is this: the man commuted the sentence for someone who committed treason against the U.S. by uncovering the identity of a federal agent who was undercover. Granted I am not aware of her work being highly dangerous but regardless this makes it appear as if it is ok to work against the government agencies.

Usually when normal people work against the government they get in rather large trouble. But what do I know; Libby is obviously far more important to the world than the average man cause…cause…oh wait he shouldn’t be.

And for God’s sake the man’s nickname is Scooter.

-Imp

So, if what you say is true than Libby was wholly innocent in the ordeal? Not a shred of Obstruction or impeding the investigation? As far as I am concerned neither party should be the winner here. Both sides of this affair have been wrought w/ corruption.

You believe that he should just be let go? And no brief glimmer of the judicial system having any power anymore is ok with you? I would think as an American you would be up in arms about special treatment since if you get sentenced I don’t believe that the president would come and rescue you. Unless your nickname is Scooter too.

-Imp

I respect your reply Imp. I disagree but what can I do.

I think Congress ought to serious consider revamping the Constitutional power of the President to grant pardons. Clinton’s pardon of a criminal on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List was one of the most outrageous things I’ve ever seen in politics, and Bush’s pardon of “Scooter” is nearly as bad.

congress? you do understand what is required to change the constitution… it isn’t up to congress for that one…

-Imp

Congress is the only body that can change the Constitution, Imp.

Check out this article:

msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

it also requires that 3/4 of the states to ratify that change

-Imp

Many more egregious pardons like this, and 3/4 of 'em just might. This is a good test to see how deep the apathy of America really runs.

cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/ … index.html

This says it all to me.

That’s a good story, but still, lines have to be drawn somewhere. A father cannot always and forever bail out his son and likewise a son for his father. Not that Bush was always bailing Libby out, but as far as the story goes it holds true only to a point. At some point it’s in the best interest of the son or father to stop protecting the son or father.

I also have to wonder if your reading of the story is correct. Is it a story of family and friends, or would Confucius say the same had the thief been a stranger?

Further, is it selfish to protect one’s own?

One might say it’s not because you’re protecting another, though you are, you are protecting the person at the expense of someone else. In a sense you’re protecting your own for yourself. Is this not capitalism?

I can see both sides here, but since I don’t like Bush I think whatever he did was wrong and you should too.

Now, naturally, the Analects is very clear that it doesn’t want ne’er-do-well children to continue in their behavior without limit – however, it is ultimately about the motivations behind the event. A son who turns his father in because his father stole the government’s sheep because he thinks he is encouraging some form of social order is actually working against that order because a family should be loyal to its members before it is loyal to the state. Virtue works in a series of ever-expanding concentric circles of obligation.

It is occasionally the case that it is better for a person to be handed in. However, that was not the case with Upright Gong – after all, his father wasn’t a chronic sheep-thief, nor did his father’s crime some egregious act
that would suggest he was deranged and needed to be put to a stop before he did something along those lines again.

As for Bush, he has shown absolutely no regard for Rule of Law in the past, and I see no reason to expect such behavior from him in the future. Indeed, Bush is severely lacking in almost all ethical departments. However, he is loyal. Very, very loyal.

Now, Libby lied to protect Cheney (and by extension, Bush). From the perspective of the unbridled nepotism that is the hallmark of the Bush administration, he did the “right” thing. It would have been a gross violation of that trust for Bush not to commute his sentence.

Basically, it is a two-wrongs don’t make a right type situation.