Debate where there is none
The New York Times published a story on the 4th entitled:
Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate
In it, people rationally discuss the words Bush used to obstruct justice and guarantee the silence of fellow traitor Scooter Libby by commuting his sentence. They take it as a statement of fact, this blather from King George, about Libby’s sentence being excessive, as something more than a smokescreen to distract the teeming masses from what he actually said, which is to wit:
“I’m commuting Libby’s sentence instead of outright pardoning him, because if I pardoned him, he’d be open to subpoena, and would have to testify in Congress about how we blew the cover of Plame and her front company, and in doing so crippled our intelligence gathering efforts in the area of WMDs, simply to silence a critic.”
Now, it will be funny if defense lawyers around the nation begin using the “Libby Defense”- ie,
“that sentence is too harsh, ‘cause the president said so”, and frankly, if they didn’t, they’d be doing their clients a disservice. Of course, our president is famous for acting and speaking without giving a thought to the consequences…
Bring ‘em on, anyone?
But it’s teeth grindingly annoying to have people debating what Bush said as if it had any relation to the truth of the matter. Why does this so-called “liberal media” keep giving this moron a pass?
