Kill All the Professionals
Overlooked in the commentary I've seen is that Judge Reggie B. Walton, whose sentence of Scooter Libby was just obliterated by George W. Bush, was appointed to the bench three times by Republican presidents. According to his website, Judge Walton was nominated to the Federal District Court by...George W. Bush. His previous judicial experience, in D. C. courts, came as a result of nominations by...Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. During the interim two years between the latter appointments, he served in White House advisory positions, including that of Bush I's Senior White House Advisor for Crime.
Overruling Judge Walton's sentence is not (as some of this morning's articles have suggested) an exceptional act of hypocrisy, a peculiar moment when the president finds it useful to shovel red meat into the maw of the base. It's a representative act of what, in the old Communist bloc, they called "politics takes command," or choosing "redness over expertise."
The common strand in this White House--is there anyone who doesn't know it?--is the rejection of precedent and knowledge when those irritating qualities interfere with political payoffs. Cf. censoring, firing, and smearing government climatologists, FDA inspectors, uncooperative US Attorneys, independent former ambassadors, ad nauseam.
Something there is in the so-called conservative movement that does not love a professional, even one you appointed yourself. This is an old story, going back to the '70s, when Irving Kristol among others began to popularize the idea that people who are in the business of knowing represent a "new class" that doesn't properly respect the prerogatives of the corporate class.
There are evidently not enough raving ideologues (yet) in the lower reaches of the judiciary, for the Libby case is not the first time Republican appointees have found against Republicans in court. The Florida judge who found that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube could be removed, was a Republican appointee. So, for that matter, was the Federal judge who found the creationist school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, guilty of “breathtaking inanity.”
So, for that matter, was U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted Libby.
Perhaps while gazing into each other's eyes in Kennebunkport the other day, Bush and Putin compared notes on how to put obstreperous professionals--ungrateful appointees--in their respective places.
And to think, in 2000 people said "Bush will surround himself with smart people."
And we got 7 years of Bush basically saying to the smart ones, "Stop thinkin' so loud, you're disturbing me. Do a heckuva job, like Brownie... Oh wait... gotta fire Brownie... ain't nothin' personal Brownie, you're just revealin' me to tha people. Heheheh."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 3, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"compassion" ...a Republican value, a conservative value, a family value.
July 3, 2007 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
A marketing slogan for the right...
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 3, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first law of gangsterism is: Don't squeel on the gang and it'll protect you, but if you do talk you'll be 'Hoffa'd'. (I worked for the government once myself.)
July 3, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that Scooter isn't facing a long prison sentence the threat that he may finally tell the truth about Cheney is ended. As a guarantee of this, he is still pursuing his appeal, so he can't be granted immunity by Congress in return for his testimony. I suppose this could be called compassion - for Cheney.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 3, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"TOTALLY FUNKED IN AMERICA 727"
WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=92689
July 3, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, not even a pardon, much less clemency, can be said to overrule a sentence, and the judge alone isn't responsible for the guilty verdict anyhow. Nor is the judge's competence or party affiliation relevant. I always thought the flak Clinton took for Mark Rich was misplaced, in that he couldn't have pardoned an innocent man almost by definition.
So no, I don't call this hypocrisy at all. It's just ugly, covering Bush's traces a little further and satisfying the wingnut base. Todd's anger thus seems totally misplaced to me.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 3, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Law and Order". Their laws, their order. All we need is their man Fred. They own the country, they own us. When they stare, look down. Yes sir, yes sir...
July 3, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats should have no trouble framing Fred. Americans already believe they've been the victim of a well orchestrated con game. Just frame old Fred as a shill, a phony, an actor, a pretender, false, etc.
I can't believe the bubba act is going to play beyond the far right base this time.
In fact, we might have the odd situation of people unwilling to admit they're going to vote for Hillary but actually doing it in the confines of the booth.
Republicans have blown the core values of trust, integrity and competence.
July 3, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purgegate: More Bush/Rove Soviet Style Thuggery
.
Bush/Rove/Cheney/Gonzalez Commissariat
Political appointees oversee science (FDA & global warming) in this administration.
Political appointees botch, bungle and butcher Iraq reconstruction and Katrina relief.
Political appointees are sent into the CIA executive suite for a political cleansing mission.
Political appointees set up a propaganda office in the DOD to deliberately and maliciously mislead the nation into war while refusing to plan for known obstacles ultimately leading to thousand of troop' deaths and injuries.
The hue and cry over Purgegate is that the Justice Department has traditionally been significantly and honorably immune to rank political interference. Not under our presently governing thugs.
Despoiling democracy and honor while emulating a Soviet/Communist Commissariat model government is the operational and ethical basis of Gonzalez and his handlers.
Good news. If politicizing the Justice Department finally brings out the backbones of our legislators, Republican and Democratic alike, shout hosannas. Citizens of the entire planet sincerely want the America that strives for honor, honesty and equal treatment under the law to reappear.
Craig Johnson
cognitorex blogspot
July 3, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Patrick Fitzgerald nailed it in his characteristically unstated way.
"We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.
We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process."
A couple of bright spots to keep in mind while we all stew over what was inevitable:
1. The Wilson's civil suit.
2. Because he was not pardoned, Scooter pie's sentence means he must live under the terms of probation for 30 months. Here's hoping that he breaks those terms and is sent to the slammer. Let's keep our eyes and cellphone camera's open.
3. It put another arrow in the Democrats quiver (to paraphrase Pelosi).
Here's an interesting list of the 10 most notorious pardons that ran in Time shortly after Scooter was sentenced. Where do you think Cheney's whipping boy fits in?
http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/
July 3, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
cognitorex's comment is excellent.
In the midst of all of this we are treated to false equivalance by MSM. We hear a variation of "Clinton did it too", or "Liberals do it too"."
We get industry shills who are given equal status to climatologists,
ethically challenged politicians/consultants (Gingrich, DeLay, Dick Morris) to counter balanced analysis of the facts. Any bets on Morris' long-predicted Hillary Clinton 2004 campaign or the Hillary vs Condi Presidential race predicted for 2008?
There is no accountability for any in the MSM. They just do their job in glossing over the most corrupt and inept administration in modern history. Didn't you know "Clinton did it too"?
July 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the judge alone isn't responsible for the guilty verdict anyhow.
But didn't Bush overrule only the sentence (which the judge alone was "responsible for") and not the "guilty verdict?"
Nor is the judge's competence...affiliation relevant.
If you were a judge and the POTUS said a sentence you handed down was "excessive" and overruled it, wouldn't you feel as though you had been publicly accused of incompetence?
Nor is the judge's...party affiliation relevant.
It is when the person doing the commuting appointed him!
I always thought the flak Clinton took for Mark Rich was misplaced, in that he couldn't have pardoned an innocent man almost by definition.
The knock against Clinton is that, astonishingly, he pardoned a fugitive!
It's...[Bush]...satisfying the wingnut base.
IMO, it's the other way around. The "wingnut base" "demanded" the pardon because Rove & Co. asked them to demand it, to give the president cover. Don't forget, Bush is wingnut #2 (Cheney's #1).
July 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bushit told the whole truth in his first statement on the leak:
It was a crime. And, he would "take care of" whoever did it.
He just "took care of" Libby.
July 4, 2007 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
". . . . glossing over the most corrupt and inept administration in modern history."
It is not inept. That is part of their cover: "Poor Georgie, he isn't too bright." He is, to the contrary, a skilled politician -- especailly when it comes to playing dumb.
he knew, and admitted, at the outset that the Plame leak was a crime. He also honestly said that whoever did it would be "taken care of". Except that he meant protected -- as he has done with Libby.
July 4, 2007 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first thought when I heard about this is that it is an expression of the president's expanded sense of presidential authority. I'm no expert in the pardon power, but my guess is that for the most part, Presidents offer pardons and clemency with rationales that either contest the legitimacy of the conviction or provide grounds for special mercy - supposed extenuating circumstances, special hardships or exemplary behavior.
For the executive to challenge the legitimacy of the sentence strikes me as a moral, if not legal, breach of the separation of powers, or more to the point, a manifestation of the belief on Bush's part that the branches are not co-equal. It might also flow from the murky doctrine of coordinate construction (I tried to make sense of that idea here), according to which each branch has a responsibility to determine the constitutionality of laws, exec. orders etc. Bush on this interpretation is just exercising his duty to come to legal opinions on constitutionally weighty matters, and exercising it hard.
But perhaps these explanations are all of a piece. The lack of respect for professionalism, and the belief that everybody plays politics, might be a necessary condition for the belief that the president can also serve as a kind of uber-judge.
July 4, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't seen a single comment by any of the disrespected jurors. Has anyone?
Whatever they have to say would be welcome fuel to the fire.
My 2 cents: Bush's action shows how out of touch he is with justice in America. Someone here mentioned his executing retarded and mentally ill prisoners. What about the millions of poor and uneducated who are railroaded into jail and prison every year due to unfamiliarity of the law and the inability to pay for a competent attorney.
Side note: I have been told most local Public Defender offices are funded by the local District Attorney's office. If I was into stacking decks, I'd say controlling funding and work load of Public Defenders would be a nice way to get more convictions.
Like someone else here said: Compassionate Conservatism is for his "base".
July 4, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"On July 4, 2007 - 10:09am Landmine said:
"Like someone else here said: Compassionate Conservatism is for his "base"."
His "base" -- al Qaeda -- being neither compassionate nor conservative, they need the example. Unfortunately, the example is neither compassionate nor conservative.
July 4, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't seen a single comment by any of the disrespected jurors. Has anyone?
Whatever they have to say would be welcome fuel to the fire.
The jurors determined guilt; the judge determined the sentence. The conviction stands, so in that sense, the jurors weren't disrespected.
July 4, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If our country had a sane electoral system, the Republicans' stand on Libby would push them down from finishing a distant fourth in the 2008 election to an even more distant fifth. As it is now, they still might win if they can push up Hillary's negatives higher than their own.
To think that barely 30 years ago, we forced Nixon to resign for less than what Bush and Cheney have done. We've come a long way since then.
July 4, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
On July 4, 2007 - 2:22pm VAGreen said:
If our country had a sane electoral system, the Republicans' stand on Libby would push them down from finishing a distant fourth in the 2008 election to an even more distant fifth. As it is now, they still might win if they can push up Hillary's negatives higher than their own.
To think that barely 30 years ago, we forced Nixon to resign for less than what Bush and Cheney have done. We've come a long way since then.
The problem is that Nixon wasn't the whole problem. (Nixon was not "forced to resign"; he chose to cut and run.) Congress didn't remove the entire cancer; instead, Nixon resigning was such a shock that everything was stopped in its tracks. Since then, with every release of tapes by the National Archives additonal crimes are revelaed. Hell, the CIA's recent release of "family jewels" papers revealed that Nixon was having the CIA pay for his political mailings. The guy committed crimes as a matter of routine.
Still, the cancer cells not removed -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. -- learned well how not to get caught this time.
July 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw noted right winger, Kate O'Beirne on a TV show recently, constantly referring to the Libby case as a "political prosecution", using the term numerous times.
So lets look at it;
Bush appoints Republican John Ashcroft as AG, Ashcroft appoints Republican Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Its safe to say there were Republicans on Fitzpatrick's Grand Jury.
The Judge in Libby's trial is a Republican appointed by Pres. George Bush, and again, its safe to say there were Republicans on this jury. Libby's appeal went to a 3 judge Panel, he was denied by the two Republican and one Dem judge, one was Judge Sentell, a protege of Repub Senator Jesse Helms, and a prime mover in getting Ken Starr appointed special prosecutor investigating Clinton.
To rational people, the likes of O'Beirne constantly make asses out on themselves when they rationalize to justify Repug skullduggery. When a scandal erupts, the inner circle Repugs know all they have to do is say 'something', say 'anything' and the rest of the party, especially the wingnuts, will not only be mollified, but happy to spew whatever mindlessness they're fed.
As ridiculous as O'Beirne was, there are no doubt hordes who saw her on that show and who will now babble the words "political prosecution."
So my question to Kate O'Beirne is this; "Keeping in mind all those involved in the Libby case, from Ashcroft to the 3 judge appeal panel, why is there a Republican centric conspiracy to politically prosecute Republican Scooter Libby?
July 4, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet again: Fitzgerald is neither Democrat nor Republican. He is politically unaffiliated. He has prosecuted and imprisoned, with equal zeal, Democrats and Republicans. He shows that a US AG can be non-partisan.
The only other non-partisan "actor" in the trial, etc., were the juries.
All others, except one judge on the appellate panel -- a Democrat -- were Republicans. And the appellate panel held UNANIMOUSLY against Libby. "No big whoop" as appeals in identical circumstances go.
July 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two nights ago a poll was released that showed 45% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached. 56% of Americans believe Cheney should be impeached. These are startling numbers, but as you are aware, the national media reflects none of this reality. The debate is whether Bush's pardon was politically appropriate or even wise. We know the reality of the situation. We can act. And the numbers support us. It's as simple as this. If everyone who felt that Bush and Cheney should be impeached called the White House, called Nancy Pelosi, called Harry Reid, called their congresspeople, the criminals would be gone.
If only ten percent of the people who felt that way called, the response would be the same.
It's as simple as that. If you act on your disgust, outrage, and indignation, change will happen. They will be gone. Democracy will be intact.
I encourage you to act.
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965
Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
The White House: 202-456-1111
How to find your representatives.
July 8, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your topic "Kill all the professionals" laughable. Of course, I thought of Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth.
If he were (Shakespeare) here you could at least ask him in old English to call a spade a spade.
July 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep! To Cheney, Nixon was an inept political wimp who couldn't tell a stonewall from a curtain of fluff.
Kevin Russell Cook
July 9, 2007 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink