Last update: May 2011

On Class Warfare

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”- Warren Buffett

The latest attack has been the lashing out against public union employees. Statistics have been grosly mis-stated to make people think that public sector employees are paid more than private sector employees. Here's a little stat that sheds some light on those lies:

One of America’s best large school districts, Maryland’s Montgomery County, has just hired a new superintendent — at a salary of $250,000. The new superintendent will manage 22,229 staffers and a $2.1-billion budget. Montgomery County’s 20 highest-paid private corporate CEOs last year managed, on average, 13,911 employees and $4.2-billion budgets. These CEOs averaged $7.9 million in pay.

Tax laws and government regulations have changed over that past 40 years to favor the 'haves' over the 'have-nots', so that now the 'haves' have more, and the 'have-nots' have even less. Currently, the top 1% of our population controls more of our country's wealth than the bottom 90%, and the Republicans, with Paul Ryans proposed bill are saying this: “Give more to the 1%, and ease their tax burden! For only by increasing in equality will we make things more equal!”

The Holdings and Influence of Rupert Murdoch

News Corp., is the world's third-largest media conglomerate (behind The Walt Disney Company and Time Warner) as of 2008, and the world's third largest in entertainment as of 2009. The company's Chairman & Chief Executive Officer is Rupert Murdoch. The company's assets are too numerous to list here. It includes newspapers, magazines, network broadcast companies, cable broadcast companies, movie production companies, internet assets, information service companies, AM radio stations, FM radio stations, book publishers, and other miscellaneous holdings more indirectly related to media. These holdings are located all over the world.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Rupert Murdoch admits in this video that he does try to shape opinion to his own political agenda, and that agenda is aligned with that of George Bush's and the Republican Party. Let me repeat: "shape public opinion to his own political agenda".

Is that not the very definition of the term "propaganda"? That means that the third largest media outlet in the world is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

Many say that it is acceptable for a media outlet to be conservative to balance out all the liberalism in the print and broadcast media. The only people who truly believe that are the ones who have fallen prey to the propaganda delivered by the Rupert Murdoch media conglomerate. Using the propaganda technique of repeating a lie over and over until it becomes the truth, the GOP has been saying for years that the media is liberal and never gives them fair shake. I believe an objective look at the media will prove this to be a lie.

A prominent CBS news anchor was fired for openly favoring one party candidate over another. Numerous executives, reporters, and even salespeople from all the major networks, PBS, and radio have been fired for making politically biased statements or for making insensitive remarks about people's race or religion.

But take a look at Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. These people are idolized for doing just that. When FOX starts firing people for demonstrating bias, I'll start to reconsider their "fair and balanced" claim. And when the major networks quit firing people for being biased, I'll begin to worry about their objectivity. Until then, I have a very different worry.

If people don't wake up to what Rupert Murdoch is doing with his media conglomerate, I fear that propaganda and lies will triump over truth and common sense.

Quote from Warren Buffett:

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked”

 

Who"s the Real Leader of the Republican Party?

Within the GOP officialdom, Limbaugh is a sensitive subject. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, said on CNN over the weekend that Limbaugh was merely an "entertainer" -- and an "incendiary" one at that. He also disputed the notion that Limbaugh was leading the GOP.

Limbaugh fired back on his show: "Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left-wing Democrat president and a left-wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it's your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do."

Steele later called Limbaugh to apologize, Politico reported. Steele released a statement: "I respect Rush Limbaugh. He is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I'm sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine."

In an interview Monday, David Axelrod, senior advisor to Obama, pressed the argument that the real GOP boss is Limbaugh: "I don't see most of these Republican office holders heeling for Mr. Steele like they do for Limbaugh."

********************************************

Are Elections in America Being Stolen?

The liberal conspiracy theorists are at it again. There are a series of Youtube videos showing an interview with Stephen Spoonamore, arguably the nations foremost authority on computer security. His Bio is here if you would like to confirm that:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/spoonamore
These interviews were conducted before the election. He is a whistle blower who predicted the GOP would steal the election and McCain would win by 1.2% popular vote and 3 electoral votes. His prediction was wrong, but the guy he implicated, Mike Connell, was the person who designed the computer architecture of the voter tabulation data gathering in Ohio, Florida and Texas since 2000. He maintained the server computer that held the GOP National Committee website, the Bush website, the McCain website, the Swift Boats for Truth web site, other GOP web sites, the Karl Rove "lost" emails in the Gonzales case, and he has since been subpoenaed to testify in an Ohio 2004 voting fraud case. Connell claimed to have been threatened by representatives of Karl Rove, and then he died in a plane crash on December 20. Yes, that's right, all very suspicious. The attorney prosecuting the case, Cliff Arnebeck, is a US Representative from Ohio.
Here is his bio:
http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/html/Arneback.html
It's all wonderful fodder for conspiracy theorists. It is interesting that our "liberal" media has been ignoring all of these seemingly bizarre allegations since these are credible people and all the evidence, although circumstantial, is very compelling. Some of the theorists are saying there is a media blackout on this because of what would happen in our country if all our citizens realized that our elections since 2000 have been decided by computer hackers.

This has been called "the most important video you'll ever see".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy1sz-xBxf8&feature=related

From there you can link to a series of videos of Spoonamore, very interesting stuff.

 

Why I've Given Up

I've called myself a Libertarian for a number of years now, but I had hopes for the GOP. Those hopes have been dashed by the final four years of Reagan's administration ('88-'92) and now by eight years of Bush's administration.

The Republican Party has given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And now, in the midst of this trillion dollar financial bailout, we get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.

This isn't to say that Barack Obama would be any better. Government would undoubtedly grow under his watch. And from my libertarian perspective, he has been increasingly disappointing even on the issues where he's supposed to be good. We may not go to war with Iran in an Obama administration, but we'd likely become entrenched in a prolonged nation-building adventure in the Sudan. Obama's vote on the FISA bill and telecom immunity also suggests that, for all his criticisms of President Bush's use of executive power and assaults on civil liberties, Obama wouldn't be much better.

Obama will take the reigns with a lot of expensive campaign promises to fulfill in a time of economic despair. With an out-of-control deficit and an over-the-top budget, there is a good chance he will only come to disappoint those who elected him. It would be a shame for our first elected African-American president to turn out to be a total failure, but it is going to be very difficult for whoever is elected. Even so, I still feel the Republicans need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and markets that are open, yet free of corruption. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war.

Secondly, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security, the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

If the GOP does lose, (which is what all the polls are predicting) it's likely to be interpreted not as a repudiation of the GOP's excesses, but as an endorsement of the Democrats'. When the only two parties who have a chance at winning both have a track record of expanding the size and scope of government, every election is likely to be interpreted as a win for big government—only the brand changes.

Voting yourself more freedom simply isn't an option, at least if you want your vote to be taken seriously. When I vote for the Libertarian Party, which I've done for a number of years now, my vote is not taken seriously. Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled: A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and strict constitutional government, is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern.

*************************************************************************************************************************

 

Quote of the day: "The leaders of our countries (U.S. & Iran) no longer see themselves just as politicians, but as agents to carry out God's will. It's as if they have risen a little bit above the ground. This is very dangerous for the rest of the world."- Mohammed Ali Abtahi, Iran's Vice President of Parliamentary Leagl Affairs from 2001-2004

***************************************************************************

Politician's Word Play

President G. W. Bush- "This country does not torture its prisoners."
President William J. Clinton- " I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

The following was copied from Meriam-Webster's dictionary:

Torture:
1 a: anguish of body or mind : intense pain of mind or body b: something that causes agony or pain2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Could you infer that this would not include simulated drowning, exposure to extreme temperatures and deprivation of food and sleep; which is what the State Department has defined as "intense interrogation technique" and has deemed acceptable? Not me.

Now consider this from Meriam-Webster's dictionary:

Sexual relations:
one entry found, see “sexual intercourse”
Sexual intercourse:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : 2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Could you infer that this would not include oral sex which is what Clinton admitted to? Not me, apparently Clinton was only using definition #1.

I think U.S. presidents read Meriam-Webster very carefully before they make these statements, but I don't think they are reading it thuroughly enough. I don't remember Ford, Carter, Reagan or G H W Bush playing these games.

It's like dealing with little children. "Did you break that lamp?"
"uuh... Who me? uuh... Nope, it wasn't me." (That football over there broke it, I only kicked the football.)

***********************

We vs. Them, a Look at Modern Day Nationalism

Do we learn from our mistakes? If we don’t learn history, are we doomed to repeat it?

World War I, The Big One, The Great War, took place primarily in Europe from 1914 to 1918. More than nine million soldiers and civilians died. The conflict involved virtually every country in Europe and had a decisive impact on the history of the 20th century. When looking at the root cause for the First World War, many historians agree that nationalism is the greatest, single contributing factor.

Nationalism is defined in Webster’s New World dictionary as: Excessive, narrow or jingoist patriotism; absolute devotion to one’s nation in favor of an aggressive, threatening, warlike foreign policy.

Feelings of nationalism are a normal, natural human instinct. In most instances we call such feelings a good thing. Patriotism, loyalty, devotion, dedication, commitment, fidelity, faithfulness, allegiance, team spirit; these are all positive terms that describe a form of nationalism. Humans all have a need to belong to the group. Once we have selected a group to belong to, and that group has accepted us, we begin to have these feelings of devotion and commitment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But can it be a bad thing?

Why are gangs such a problem these days, and why have we had so little success in controlling gangs in our communities? When a young person is accepted by the gang, these positive emotions of devotion, dedication and commitment all begin to set in. These positive emotions associated with belonging to a group are not necessarily a bad thing. We call it a good thing when it is applied to a team, a school or a nation. It is called team spirit, school spirit or patriotism and we encourage it among our young people. Yet when applied to gangs, it is easier for us to see the negative aspects of belonging to the group.

The positive feelings of devotion, dedication and commitment are all very intense, and along with them we will develop intense negative emotions toward the rivals of the group. These negative emotions include distrust, animosity, hostility, enmity, resentment, antagonism, and even hatred. Take for instance the two gangs, the Crips and the Bloods. These are two gangs formed of African Americans who appear to be very much alike, with the only apparent difference being that the members of one gang wear red and the members of the other gang all wear blue. These gangs need to be separated in institutions such as schools and prisons, because the gang members will fight on contact. Some gangs can get along with other gangs in an amiable manner, but when gangs form rivalries, very intense negative emotions, and even fights will ensue. However, this is really not much different than fans skirmishing at soccer matches, parents fighting at little league games and politicians brawling in parliament.

One may not think that such negative emotions would embroil the average college student, but let’s take a look at school spirit. In a discussion with a family member recently, the topic of football came up. It seems this person’s alma-mater had a prime rival who was playing an out-of-state team and this person was rooting for the out-of-state team. She would rather see the local, rival team loose to a team that was from a completely different region. When questioned about the dichotomy, she said that if a communist country fielded a team against this rival, she would root for the communist team.

Now there is nothing wrong with a little friendly competition, but let’s look at the accompanying thought processes and extend it to other areas. When one becomes a member of a group, whether it be a college, a religion, a gang, or even a political party, they begin to adopt the “we vs. them” attitude and all that goes along with it. They become devoted to that group. This devotion tends to make the person think “my group behaves the right way”, “my group thinks the right thoughts” and “my group does the right thing”. If you are truly devoted and committed to your group, then this thinking becomes more extreme, and then one begins to think; “my group is always right, all the time”. Along with that thinking, comes the antithesis “the rival group is wrong”. The extreme of this occurs when “the rival group is always wrong in whatever they think, do or say”.

This “we vs. them” mentality is prevalent throughout the world today in our sports, our religions and our politics. My team should win every game. My religion is the only way to get to Heaven, and my political party is the only one capable of leading the country. The only thing that matters any more is winning. Since my side is always right, then anyway my side wins is acceptable. 'The ends justifies the means', becomes an accepted policy. Ethics is out the window. This is why we have steroids in sports, terrorism in religion and corruption in politics.

One of the most damaging aspects of the “we vs. them” mentality can be found in the current condition of our political parties. It is why our nation is more partisan than it has been since the Civil War. It is why no Democrat can applaud anything that any Republican says, and no Republican can approve anything said by a Democrat. It’s why Republicans wear red and Democrats wear blue. (just like the Crips and the Bloods) It’s why republicans who break the law are excused by other Republicans just as errant Democrats are excused by other Democrats. It’s why anything one party supports is brought into disrepute by the other party regardless of its merit. It is why our government is grid locked and can’t get anything done. It is why our sixteenth president wrote: “A house divided can not stand.”

While this struggle goes on, the two political parties argue over which one is more patriotic, which one supports the troupes, which one is more about protecting our country- not our constitution nor our liberties and freedom, but our country. This is where the nationalism comes in as a threat. When you begin to see what nationalism really is, as the “we vs. them” mentality, this is when you begin to see how it has become a part of our modern society and how it poses a threat to our freedom.

What can be done about this? Can we as a society recognize our “we vs. them” mentality and change it? How would we go about this?

Personally, I doubt if humanity can resolve this issue. We will just have to live with it as one of our frailties. If we were capable of solving the problem we would end our gang problems, bring peace to the Middle East, and the elephant would lie down by the donkey. I don’t believe these things will happen for some time to come- certainly not in my lifetime.

What we can do is learn to recognize the negative aspects of belonging to a group and do what we can to keep those negative emotions out of our lives. Keep in mind that all competitions should remain friendly competitions. Remember the other side can be right too, and my side may not always be correct. Regardless of what my holy book may seem to say, my way to Heaven may not be everyone’s way. Always remember that no matter how important the outcome is, the use of unethical means to achieve it can never be justified.

This is actually a simple lesson: Respect your fellow man. Treat him as you would want him to treat you because we’re all in this thing together.

****************************************************

Who Took the Conserve out of Conservative?

Merriam Webster:

Conserve: to avoid wasteful or destructive use of
Liberal: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way

Doesn't the word 'conservative' mean 'one who conserves'? Then explain something to me. Listening to Rush Limbaugh today (conservative talk radio), I had a bit of a problem reconciling some things he said. He played his humorous, 'Yugo' song about the liberal couple who died in their small, economy car. (If you've heard this parody of Elivis's song "In the Ghetto" - Yes, humorous- very funny, particularly if you're into dead liberals.) Then Rush bragged about the large SUVs he owns and enjoys riding around in, (a Cadillac Escalade and a Chevrolet Suburban) and he bragged about the amount of gas they use, stating he didn't even mind paying today's higher prices for fuel. This reminds me of another radio talk show host, Shawn Hannidy, who bragged about his Cadillac Escalade. Anyway, Rush went on to discuss how nobody but a liberal would ever drive a Toyota Prius. He stated unequivocally, "anybody you see in a Prius is an "evil liberal." I didn't really follow how the term "evil" got put into his remark, but it did. There were some comments that led to how liberalism is "the dark path" as he put it, culminating with "only evil liberals drive Priuses". I didn't really make the leap in logic that he expected, but then I wasn't paying very close attention. I don't think his remark will help Toyota's sales, but since Toyota is not one of Rush's sponsors, I'm sure Rush doesn't care. He has also come out saying the new high efficiency light bulbs are a waste, and that breaking one of them creates a hazardous chemical spill due to the mercuric oxide within them. It is true that the bulbs contain HgO and should be recycled, but it's simply not true about the the broken bulb causing a hazardous chemical spill, because the HgO is in the base of the bulb and not in the glass portion. Why would Rush make light of one being conservative? To what end? Why have the conservatives been advocating the liberal consumption of our resources and the liberals asking us to conserve? It seems things have been turned topsy turvy.

Without ragging any more on Rush, I just have to wonder. Why have the Democrats, or the liberal party, taken up the banner of conservation while the Republicans, or the conservative party, become so liberal about their energy consumption? I don't really see why either party would want to start a race to see how quickly we can use up our resources, but it looks as though that's just what the Republicans are doing. True, the liberals have gone overboard by getting legislation passed that damages our economy in exchange for some very modest ecological advances. The liberals are also pushing for treaties that will put the U.S. on an un level playing field in the world market by making American businesses comply with restrictions while competing with companies in foreign countries that will not be forced to comply with the same restrictions. So in response to irrational behavior by the Democrats, the Republicans, in typical partisan fashion, are going to act childish and criticize any efforts to conserve. You can tune into talk radio and regularly hear the conservative hosts bashing windmills, solar cells, economy cars and even trees. God forbid they be mistaken for a tree hugger.

Our political system was remarkably similar about a century ago. It was 1912 when a man named Theodore Roosevelt, a conservative Republican, began a campaign. In his words, he was out "to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics". This pissed off the Republicans of the day. Many in the GOP thought he wasn't conservative enough and too much of a 'moderate', so he didn't win his party's nomination for president. That is when Teddy Roosevelt set out to establish his own party, the Bull Moose, or Progressive Party. Evidently, there were enough independent voters at that time (again, sounds like now) that didn't think he was too moderate, so they voted for him. He split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson to be elected. Roosevelt did, however, win the popular vote. Teddy Roosevelt, who did consider himself a conservative, was a Rough Rider, a fighter, a defender of freedom and the kind of conservative who conserved. During his term of office (he had been the Republican president from 1901 to 1908) he was the greatest conservation president our country has ever seen, establishing the National Park Service and setting aside thousands of acres of protected land. I doubt if the conservatives we have in the GOP today would like him very much either- and I doubt if he would think highly of our neo cons and their relationships with the drug and oil companies.- and a lot of other things going on in Washington D.C. today too. Could it be the "unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics" has been reconsolidated?

Maybe today we need Teddy Roosevelt, or at least a viable third party candidate- just my humble opinion, but.....sheesh!.

***************************************************************

Taxing Cigars $10 Each: The Truth

Those politicians, and this time it's the Democrats, are either devaluing my money by spending money they don't have, or they're grabbing my money through taxation. Either way, we'd be better off if they only met in legislative session once every 10 or 20 years. Now there's talk about them increasing taxes on cigars from 5 cents to $10. Anybody who knows me knows that I enjoy a good cigar from time to time, so this one is hitting close to home. After doing a little research on the matter, I have found that there is some truth to the rumor, but as rumors tend to be exaggerations, this one too is blown out of proportion somewhat.

Before you get too alarmed, this is how it reads in the actual bill that has been proposed:

• Small cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $50.00 per thousand ($1.00 per pack);
• Large cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $104.9999 per thousand;
• Small cigars are taxed at the rate of $50.00 per thousand (the same rate applied to
small cigarettes);
• Large cigars are taxed at the rate equal to 53.13 percent of the manufacturer’s or
importer’s sales price but not more than $10.00 per cigar;

This means that the Dominican Republic hand rolled cigar that I buy for $1.36 each, will now cost $2.08 each. An increase of 72 cents per cigar. I'm not happy about this increase, but it is certainly better than the rumored $11.36 per cigar that I would have to pay. True, the $20 cigars that Rush smokes would go up $10, but unlike Rush Limbaugh, who states "they can raise the tax $100 per cigar, I'm going to be smoking one till they pry it from my cold, dead fingers", I'm afraid I would give the habit up, because $12.00 would be a price I couldn't afford.

Sheesh!----------What next?

*************************************************************

Cut 'N Run?

You're either with us or you're against us. You want to cut and run? You want to admit defeat and surrender?

Why is it we allow the strict neo-conservatives to define everything for us? Why do we allow them to say this is a black or white issue that we can't disagree with unless we're un-American? Why do we let them rephrase every argument in emotional terms that aren't realistic?

What's wrong with "withdraw, regroup and re deploy"? Why do we let the neo cons call it "cut 'n run"? What happened to the sound military tactic of "pull back, reorganize and fight another day"? Even if you want to call it a “retreat”, simply redeploying your resources where they can better defeat Al Quiada and the Taliban is by no means "surrendering" to the enemy.

When the president says “You’re either with us or against us”, that’s a lot like saying “My way or the highway.” Judging from the number of high ranking government officials and military leaders who have “hit the highway”, starting with Colen Powell, I would say there’s a lot more dissension in Washington than there is open-mindedness. - sheesh!

*****************************************

Now About Valerie Plame...

Quote of the day by Scott McClellan: "Deception permeates our national political discourse and has become an accepted way of winning the partisan wars for public opinion." He continues: "I had great hope in Bush to change that culture. He chose not to do so. . . . Instead, his own White House became embroiled in political maneuvering that was equally unsavory, if not worse than that of the Clinton White House."

Specifically, McClellan accused Rove and Libby of actively deceiving him during the investigation into the 2003 exposure of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame. He wrote that his credibility suffered after, as White House spokesman, he issued public denials early in the investigation that neither Rove or Libby was involved.

Libby eventually was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying about what he had told reporters about Plame; Rove was investigated for two years and acknowledged speaking with reporters about the operative but was never charged with a crime.

McClellan wrote that he spoke to reporters only after both men had assured him privately that they were not involved in leaking Plame's name.

"I can only conclude that they knowingly misled me," he wrote. "I would never have made that statement had I known the facts."

McClellan wrote that "what they did was wrong and harmful to national security" and said that it was "clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted."

Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison in 2007, but Bush commuted the sentence, a move that McClellan said left him "disappointed."

McClellan said he had also been personally assured by Bush that Rove was not involved in the leak.

"President Bush would not have deliberately misled me," McClellan wrote. "While I wish I could say the same about the vice president, I simply don't know for sure."

Libby's lawyer declined to comment.

About the Plame affair: the following text is copied from MMFA.

"In fact, Novak has identified both Rove and Armitage as the sources for his July 14, 2003, column, which publicly revealed Plame's employment with the CIA. Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper also named Rove as his source who identified former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent during a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003.

Moreover, contrary to Rove's narrow characterization of the question McClellan purportedly asked -- Rove worded the issue in terms of whether he "leak[ed] Valerie Plame's name" -- Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin has reportedly acknowledged that there is no meaningful distinction between leaking Plame's "name" and leaking her identity as Wilson's wife, as Media Matters for America has noted. In a July 12, 2005, National Review Online (NRO) article, White House correspondent Byron York wrote that "Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, 'I agree with you. I think it's a detail.' "

Regarding Libby, his indictment alleged that he discussed Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller before Plame's employment was public. After Miller was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify before the federal grand jury in the Libby case, she identified Libby as her source for the information on Plame."

Should President Bush Have Commuted Libby's Prison Sentence?

Why not? Libby should be rewarded for his loyalty. Libby served exactly zero days in jail. The commutation of his sentence came before he ever even showed up to begin serving his prison sentence.

Hey! Wait a minute. Is a convicted felon expected to "show up" at the prison to begin serving his sentence at his own convenience? If that were you or me, we'd have been handcuffed and walked to a jail cell after the judge read the sentence. Why did Scooter get special treatment in the first place?

How convenient that Bush commuted the sentence after the judge ordered Libby to "show up" to serve his time. Sounds a little to me as if Scooter may have given someone a bit of an ultimatum, i.e. "If I have to go to jail, I'm not going alone!" Viola! A commutation is issued. So now Scooter gets off "Scott free".

But Scooter didn't break any laws that Clinton didn't break, so why should he serve any jail time at all? Clinton didn't.

Or at least that's the GOP talking point. True, Clinton did not tell the truth to a grand jury when he said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." And that IS a federal crime- the same crime that Scooter Libby was convicted of. Conservatives love to bring that up, saying that Clinton "got away" with the same crime that Scooter Libby did, so there should be no punishment.

So let's compare these two crimes:

In Clinton's case, did the truth come out about what Clinton had lied about? Yes it did. And the crime that Clinton was covering up, the sexual relationship with Monica Lowensky, was Clinton punished for that crime? Let's see, other than loss of credibility and a great personal embarrassment, he had no penalties. But let's take a look at what the penalties are for his crime of infidelity? Well, infidelity in itself is not a crime. Lying to the grand jury was the crime, for which he received no punishment. Were there any other criminals involved in Clinton's crime who absconded from justice because of his lies? Only Monica Lowensky, but keep in mind her infidelity is not illegal. So no criminals absconded from justice in this case.

In Scooter Libby's case, did the truth come out about what he lied about? No. And the crime that Libby was covering up, the outing of agent Valerie Plame, was Libby punished for that crime. No. Was the crime that Libby was covering up also a "non-criminal" activity like Clinton's infidelity? No, unlike infidelity, outing a federal agent is a serious felony. Was anybody punished for that crime? No. Did Libby's lies allow other criminals to abscond from justice? Yes. Somebody outed Valerie Plame and because of Libby's lies, we'll never know the truth. President Bush stated early on that he wanted to see the person who outed Valerie Plame brought to justice, but then he commuted Libby's sentence, facilitating Scooter Libby in this obstruction of justice.

For this reason, I would answer the question posed at the beginning with, "No, the president should not have commuted Libby's sentence."

Yes, a person can compare these two events in history, but you have to take a very shallow look at it not to see the differences.