posted on July 4, 2007 08:59:28 AM new
‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Updated: 5:13 p.m. PT July 3, 2007
“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”
That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.
“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”
The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.
We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.
But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.
Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.
And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.
We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.
And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.
Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.
Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?
In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.
This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.
Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.
The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.
The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.
And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.
I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.
I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.
I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.
I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.
I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.
I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.
And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.
When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.
“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”
President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.
It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.
And in one night, Nixon transformed it.
Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.
Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.
Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.
The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.
But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.
It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.
Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.
It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign
Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.
But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.
It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.
We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.
For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.
Resign.
And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”
There's no other way to see it. A president and vice president have taken hold of the helm of this country and are dictating by fiat the very freedom and air that people are allowed to breathe, while holding themselves and their own above the law. We are led by the most un-American of men. Let there be no doubt. But in the wake of inaction and a Congress only equipped to hurl words, the question remains what will be done about it?
It's ironic to me that the quote Keith Olbermann used last night to begin his special comment were words I know so well. I used them in my one woman show two years ago, which revolved around John F. Kennedy. I used them to illustrate that Kennedy held the people's hopes and dreams, even for those who weren't Democrats. We've come along way since those days of J.F.K.
On this 4th of July, I. Scooter Libby may be free, but America is not. We the people are not. Most of the Senate certainly is not, tied down to some traditionalism that tacitly gives permission to the president's lawlessness, because raising the Capitol dome is judged unseemly. House Democrats are at least standing up and shouting loudly, holding hearings and investigations, even if some can't bring themselves to stand up and lose their jobs by doing their jobs, which is to preserve this republic at all costs, even your own. As for the Republicans in Congress, those Republicans, conservatives, as well as their right-wing pundits beyond who hail what Mr. Bush did in commuting Libby's sentence as action of the good. They are now pariahs of The Patriots fighting to take this country back. People like you and me.
I have no answers for anyone today, even if we had the will and the ideas to set the Congress on course, because we have no leaders to show us the way towards the road that will set this nation free from the worst president in history and the most egregious overreach of executive power orchestrated out of a vice president's office that rules with impunity. Usurping the very meaning of what the Founders meant for this country, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have hijacked this democracy and made it something other and they did it with the help of cowards in the conservative movement that now lies in tatters, because of the largeness of their own incompetence and moral spinelessness.
There is no doubt that it was George W. Bush's privilege to commute I. Scooter Libby's sentence, but it changed the nature of this country to do so and a large section of this land will forever disown this president who has betrayed the people yet another time, as well as what this nation means to the world, and the fighting U.S. troops on the ground around the world, because he has put himself and his loyal subjects above country and all else, so that our soldiers are giving their lives for a Commander in Chief who has betrayed his charge.
I was one of those people who put partisanship aside after 9/11. Mr. Bush has proven unworthy at every turn. So this latest betrayal put on top of all of the other ones does not surprise. However, as Mr. Bush prays to his God, which hasn't resembled anything I know spiritually, morally or religiously for a very long time, our president should come prostrate and humble, on bended knee and asking for forgiveness for himself, because he has committed the gravest sin against us all. Mr. Bush has taken the oath of office he swore to his God and we the people of this greatest nation on earth and turned the Constitution and everything for which we have stood and the Founders and Americans die to preserve, and made it all a mockery. Turned it all to ashes.
For many months now and with every day that passes many of us have prayed or simply hoped this would be over soon; counting that the long nightmare of Mr. Bush's presidency would be over, because the end was getting nearer. But with each march towards the finish line reality in this now hobbled republic just keeps getting worse.
There is no independence today, not for The Patriots, simple Amercians like you and me.
The president and his privileged pack will eat barbecue and (not) drink beer, while clucking over their constitutional wand waving, as fireworks burst above. I. Scooter Libby will walk in and the applause will start and rise, then grow.
But out in America there will be unrest; a majority of dissenting voices going unnoticed and ignored by the president and his privileged pack. But a growing furor still. Where it will lead we yet do not know.
posted on July 4, 2007 09:58:02 AM new
Thank you Profe and thank you Keith Olbermann. Thank you Helen. A couple of strong, poignant essays which are especially touching on this Day of Independence.
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 4, 2007 10:23 AM ]
posted on July 4, 2007 10:17:07 AM new
I was about to post Keith's words from yesterday. They're very good. He's quite eloquent. Contrast him with Ann Coulter. Yikes.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on July 4, 2007 03:01:41 PM new
Typical banter of the hypocritical left.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Olbermann wrote an e-mail to a viewer concerning fellow MSNBC reporter Rita Cosby, saying, “Rita's nice, but dumber than a suitcase of rocks.”[25] Olbermann has since apologized for the email saying he had been stupid and should have known better.[26]
[edit] Nazi salute
While on vacation in July 2006, Olbermann was a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. On the show, he was asked to comment on a photo taken at the recent Television Critics Association press tour that had appeared on the Drudge Report which showed him holding a Bill O'Reilly mask and giving an apparent Nazi salute to the audience. Olbermann said he had been waving to a friend, though he added that "Bill O'Reilly has defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions." [27][28] Olberman's comments referred to a repeated mistake by Bill O'Reilly in which O'Reilly stated that American troops were the aggressors in the Malmedy massacre.
On July 28, 2006, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sent an open letter to Olbermann at MSNBC stating, "We are deeply dismayed by your ongoing use of the Nazi 'Sieg Heil' salute, both on your program and in public appearances…" The letter explains that Olbermann's use of the salute prompted many complaints from its members, including Holocaust survivors, and that any use of it "serves to trivialize the Holocaust and the six million Jews and others … who died." The letter closed by asking Olbermann to reconsider his use of the Nazi salute in the future.[29]
* "Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28
* "Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. . . . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, press release, July 2
Just when we thought William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, et al. had been caught with their paws in enough cookie jars to spare us their phony "Culture of Corruption" mantra, we hear from the extremely shady Harry Reid that commuting the sentence of political prisoner Scooter Libby is "disgraceful." According to Dingy Harry, Libby lied about a matter of national security, so he belongs in prison. No comment from Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Burglar.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 4, 2007 03:53:38 PM new
Bear, don't you get tired of blaming everyone else? Don't you get tired of trying to divert attention from the issue? I don't care how many people got off for doing the same thing. Just like I don't care how many bank robbers got away with their holdups. If the cops caught the next bank robber and he was tried and convicted--off to jail he goes. I don't even care what Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid say. My own opinion is it stinks of corruption to commute Libby's sentence. And, I am not the only one.
posted on July 5, 2007 06:29:53 AM new
LOL....yea, bear, CC doesn't CARE how many CORRUPT operators the clinton administration had....and even clinton himself.
ALL that matters to these liberals/progressives is that that all liberal corruption be IGNORED. Look to old pelosi's promise to 'clean up DC' then to her actual actions.
Now, don't EVER mention it again. LOL LOL LOL LOL
They don't live in reality. They don't see themselves and the fact that they're always doing the same thing. But it's their double standard they work to protect.
"No comment from Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Burglar."
Of course not. They overlook those 'small' issues. ROFLOL It's NORMAL to them for berger to stuff classified national documents in his PANTS. Hide them under construction trucks...etc. Expected that he'd get OFF with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
I'm telling you, the more they WHINE the funnier it is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 5, 2007 06:33 AM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 08:51:03 AM new
"LOL....yea, bear, CC doesn't CARE how many CORRUPT operators the clinton administration had....and even clinton himself"
And you don't care how many CORRUPT operators there are in the Bush administration.
In case you need translation, I don't care re the above as it relates to Libby's conviction, sentencing and commutation. What Clinton did or did not do should have no bearing on Libby's case. I have not denied that there was corruption in the Clinton administration. Why couldn't the dear old GOP get him indicted? Don't blame me or other liberals here for this. If the statute of limitations has not run out, why don't you start a movement to indict Clinton? While you are at it, why don't you dig up Nixon and have him indicted?
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 5, 2007 08:54 AM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 09:18:48 AM new
"You appear to ME, to wish to keep the subject on ONLY this case. That's not reality when discussing ANY political issue"
Linda---Your answer to any criticism of Bush is to bring up Clinton. How does the fact that Clinton was not indicted, convicted, sentenced for any supposed crime affect the Libby case? Yes, Clinton pardoned/commuted sentences of many felons. So did Reagan, Carter, Ford (a biggie--remember Nixon?) but it is a tradition that does not help this country. Nor does Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. This is someone who was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation of the BUSH administration. What precipitated Nixon's downfall was the firing of special prosecuter Archibald Cox, who was investigating HIS administration. If you cannot see how suspicious and wrong this looks, your bias has overtaken you.
posted on July 5, 2007 09:31:13 AM new
Bear, don't you get tired of blaming everyone else?
Blameing WHO? All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious and continuous liberal bias and hypocritical attitude on the matter.
If you cant handle the obvious, thats your problem. Then again, having craw side with you says enough.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jul 5, 2007 09:35 AM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 09:48:50 AM new
"Blameing WHO? All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious and continuous liberal bias and hypocritical attitude on the matter."
I must have said Clinton was wrong in some of the things he did a half-dozen times in this thread, as have many other posters. Where is the hypocrasy? Bringing up Clinton with every criticism of Bush is really a weak argument. If that is what you want to do, I have a point to make using Clinton. Apparently, we have learned from the Clinton era, that a president should not be above the law and are attempting to change that. Bush is just not cooperating!
posted on July 5, 2007 10:13:28 AM newWhat a bunch of whiners.
Linda you really need to quit projecting your faults onto others. You are the biggest crybaby on this board.
You cry about free speech when it doesn't fit into your view of free speech.
You whined for months about how you were kicked off the OTWA.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 10:14:27 AM newWhere is the hypocrasy?
Open any newspaper or television news report on the matter. Who is criticizing the commutation? ALL of the liberal controlled drive by media talking heads.
Thats where the hypocrisy lies (along with other anti Bush posters here that continue to defend ALL that clinton did ).
Do you understand that?
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jul 5, 2007 10:39 AM ]
Jul 5 12:55 PM US/Eastern
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.
"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"
In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.
The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.
"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."
Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."
Former Vice President Al Gore said he found the Bush decision "disappointing" and said he did not think it was comparable to Clinton's pardons.
"It's different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did," Gore said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday.
Snow also tried to clear up confusion about Libby's probation. While commuting Libby's sentence in terms of prison time, Bush left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release—a form of probation—is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it's unclear what happens next.
Snow said the White House view was this: "You treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works."
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, earlier this week, said the law "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."
He gave Libby's attorneys and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald until Monday to respond.
posted on July 5, 2007 10:31:19 AM newI don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Linda should be able to help out Tony Snowjob. Linda knows all about the Arkansas language
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 10:42:03 AM newThats where the hypocrisy lies
Just like Bush saying one day he agrees with the sentence Libby got and then next day he has to commute the prison term. But then he says he hasn't ruled out a pardon.
Either Bush agrees with the sentence or he doesn't. Why not grant the pardon now? Is it because Bush is afraid will spill the beans on what he knows. After all Libby can not be prosecuted any further for the Plame outing and he is free to the tell the truth.
........................................................................................
Thats where the hypocrisy lies
Administration pushes for mandatory sentences
By Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press | June 17, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals.
The Justice Department is offering the plan as an opening salvo in a larger debate about whether sentences for crack cocaine are unfairly harsh and racially discriminatory.
Republicans are seizing the administration's crackdown, packaged in legislation to combat violent crime, as a campaign issue for 2008.
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts -- and not let judges consider such penalties "merely a suggestion."
Such an overhaul, in part, "will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006.
Judges, however, were livid over the proposal to limit their power. "This would require one-size-fits-all justice," said US District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body.
"The vast majority of the public would like the judges to make the individualized decisions needed to make these very difficult sentencing decisions," Cassell said. "Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors."
The debate, pitting prosecutors against jurists, has been ongoing since a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that declared the government's two decades-old sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The ruling in United States v. Booker said judges are not required to abide by the federal guidelines -- which set mandatory minimum and maximums on sentences -- but could consider them in meting out prison time.
The Justice Department wants to return to the old system of mandatory minimum sentences, under which judges could grant leniency only in special cases. Without those required floors, Justice officials maintain that different judges could hand out widely varying penalties for the same crime.
Justice officials also point to a growing number of lighter sentences as possible proof that crime is rising because criminals are no longer cowed by strict penalties.
In the two years since the ruling, federal judges have become three times more likely to hand down prison sentences below the suggested levels, according to 2006 US Sentencing Commission data.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 10:47:04 AM newno, i really don't, ld.
I guess you haven't lived in Arkansas long enough yet to pick up on their language.
But there you go again, talking FOR me. A liberal trait.
If it is only a liberal trait as you claim, you must be an in the closet liberal since you do the exact same thing Linda. You big 'ol hypocrite. Who is it that keeps saying the Dems support the terrorists? That's right, it is you - Ms. Speaking for Others.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 11:39:49 AM new
"along with other anti Bush posters here that continue to defend ALL that clinton did ).
Do you understand that?"
I understand that along with other PRO-Bush posters here, you continue to defend all that Bush has done. That is hypocrisy as well.
I also understand ld's post stating that Bush administration wants all criminals to go to jail----well, except for Scooter, of course. That's hypocrisy.
posted on July 5, 2007 02:21:36 PM new
Linda_K
posted on July 5, 2007 10:32:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, i really don't, ld.
But there you go again, talking FOR me.
A liberal trait."""
LOL! Hahahaha!
LIBERAL? So YOU 'RE a liberal now?
YOU have spoken for "most Americans", "millions" of soldiers....you continually and frequently speak for others ...
TSK TSK TSK
Caught in yet ANOTHER lie , linduh...you just can't quit can ya
posted on July 6, 2007 08:14:59 PM newMuch of US favors Bush impeachment: poll
Fri Jul 6, 6:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.
The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.
The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.
The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.
The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.
Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.
Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.
In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.
But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.
