Statement by the President:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

........ The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

The mainstream Democrats over at DU had this to say about today's Presidental clemency:

Edited on Mon Jul-02-07 06:05 PM by autorank

Any Democrat who opposes impeachment after this should be recalled.
This is the beginning of the end of something, don't quite know what but things are going to
explode in our corner of the world and, as we who follow public opinion know, DU is pretty
mainstream (at least on elections and voting rights issues, Iraq, the environment).

This will be one of the most intense and productive periods in American history. We have three tracks of ultimate truth going:

1) The world is dying - according to mainstream science. We're screwed unless we act in the next few years and then we're still screwed to an extent.

2) We're monsters to each other and allow each other to suffer vis a vis our health care system - Sicko is an indisputable argument proving that.

3) NO ONE can now deny this - Bush is utterly corrupt. Those 26% who still support him will dwindle by 20-30% so it will be only the 18% or so who always support the lunatic right (it was about 14% way back who continued to support McCarthy after he was disgraced thoroughly).

On edit: Not worth the effort to recall them. They just need to be scared into doing the right thing.

dicknbush  Mon Jul-02-07 07:09 PM

Response to Original message 233. HYE PELOSI...YOU BETTER PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE!    
IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMENT. THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY TOPIC OF DISCUSION FORM NOW ON UNTIL THE END OF THIS TRAVESTY. IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMNET!!!

ProudDad Mon Jul-02-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message 275. Cute he does this on July 2
    
so it can sink into the news hole under all of the patriotic BULLSHIT that's going to flood the MSM for the next 2 days.

Clever...

PISS ON ALL FLAGS!!!!

Throwing Stones  Mon Jul-02-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message 277. FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS!
   
that is all.

Amer Tahiri tells it like it is.   

10 out of 10 dems and Mullahs agree.....The mullahs (and Dems) want Iraq to become a theater of historic humiliation for the West, especially the United States. They hope to see the Americans running away, not withstanding in the context of an agreeement with a friendly Iraqi government. They want the credit for chasing away the Americans to go to Tehran and its Iraqi allies, notably muqtada al-Sadr.

 Maliki, however, wants the U.S.-led coalition out of Iraq only when the new Iraq is capable of defending itself against its enemies, including the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Beyond that, he wants to maintain a strategic partnership with the Western democracies in the interst of Iraq's economic development. 

Both the mullahs and the Jack Murtha Democrats hate Maliki because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true.

The mullahs dream of that "last U.S. helicopter" taking off from a Baghdad rooftop, spelling the end of American hpes of bringing decent government to Iraq. 

The Murth Democrats (of which I am not) may not want a humilitating American defeat in Iraq but would like something that looks like one. Only percieved defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base (not me) and make a bid for the White House next year.

It may be a coincidence. However, each time Democrats throw a poisonous arrow at Maliki, they are followed by mullahs doing the same the next day. Maybe Maliki is doing something right? 

Maybe President Bush was right to establish a democracy in Iraq. 

In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.

Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?

 Cards on the table.

Patrick Buchanan nails the issue regarding Imus.  A certain lackwit section of our population howls that our foreign policy is the root our tarnished global image.  I say it is the public display of unbalanced 'morality' in the American stage that inflicts far more damage to our credibility as a nation and a culture. 

Madame Pelosi's  world class oral skills were put to good use in her recent visit to Syria.  10 out of 10 Syrian terrorists, who have killed more Americans than any other group outside of al-queda, give Pelosi two thumbs up.  They contentedly quoted that she really understands the Middle East and hope she wins more elections.  

Is this part of the Change for America that Democrats sold the American public this past November? John Gibson gives us the low down:

Feminists like Barbara Boxer want it both ways. They want abortion rights, they want women to have access to the workplace, but if the woman takes that freedom, does not marry, does not have children, evidently Boxer thinks that woman is unqualified to use her education, experience and judgment in her career.

Now, according to Boxer, that woman has to have children to have her career. Sound confusing? Sure is. It is Boxer logic that only applies to one woman: a single, conservative black woman who happens to be secretary of state.

Boxer wouldn't say to anybody else, you have to have kids to hold your job. She wouldn't dream of saying that to a CEO or to a sales manager. But she thinks it's OK to say it to a secretary of state because this particular woman secretary of state has supported a decision to go to war. Only when it comes to a conservative black woman would Boxer think to ask that question.

A black woman should be a liberal. A black woman should have voted for Boxer and voted against Bush, and a black woman should be opposed to the war. If this black woman is none of those things then there is something wrong with her. What could it be?

Oh, she hasn't been married, nor does she have children.
If I had said what Boxer said about a black woman secretary of state in a Democratic administration I'd have a pack of libs calling for my head.

All I want is an apology. Cough it up, Senator.

Senator Boxer needs to resign then apologize to Condi.

Is Boxer upset that she can't use the DNC's pet mantra of calling for Republican politicians to send their children to the frontlines of Iraq on Condi? This latest debacle by a Democrat raises questions that need to be addressed - publicly. Is there a level of racism and sexism that Democrats won't cross to score political points? Is this an example of the 'Big Tent' Party's tolerance towards racial minorities and women who have differing points of view? How can any sane woman support the DNC? Finally, how much damage to the credibility of feminists worldwide will the DNC inflict before being voted out of power in 2008?

I know I'm going to be repeating this over and over the next two years:

DON'T BLAME ME - I VOTED REPUBLICAN!