Dear "Anonymous":

Thanks for posting and not leaving any way to identify yourself. Very brave to take the time to write a comment and not have to be held accountable. Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me coming from your side of the aisle. If I do have the opportunity to reach you again, I can only assume you’re an avid reader of my blog- in which case I am flattered by your support, attention and love. Thank you.

As for your comments, well, let me be the first to pick apart piece by piece what you said, because it will give me genuine enjoyment. I’ll start with your points chronologically, since they’re all so silly no rhyme or reason can really put them in order.

“It is neither an abuse of power or a perversion of the rule of law. What Bush did was COMPLETELY legal.”

Where in my post did you spot the part where I said what Bush did was illegal? Oh, that’s right, it’s not there. What he did was legal, but it doesn’t make it right. What I said was his actions were a “gross perversion of the Rule of Law as we know it, but also an open and bald-faced abuse of power.” I didn’t say he broke the law, but it WAS a shady and shitty thing to do. He used his legally granted power to give someone a break that didn‘t deserve one. This is my point. And as a matter of fact, I didn’t hear you mention anything about whether or not he deserved the mercy he received. Let me say this as loudly and clearly as I can: SCOOTER LIBBY IS A LYING, MALICIOUS PIECE OF SHIT. He deserved to serve time for betraying his country.

Next, you said:

“He "lied" to a Grand Jury. Out of all the counts the jury found him guilty on, NONE were "lied to a federal prosecutor" Two were lying to a grand jury. You dont have a clue as to what you're taking about.”

Hey, you got me! You’re right, he wasn’t convicted of lying to the prosecutor, it was for lying to the grand jury. In fact, I’ll also throw in the part where you point out he didn’t use his pardon power in this case, which you are technically right again. I used an incorrect term, but he did use his powers to commute Libby’s sentence. Touché. By the way, just out of curiosity, who do you think asked him those questions in front of the grand jury? You may have more insight into this than I, but while under oath in front of a grand jury do they let just anybody question the witnesses? Do random people picked for a jury get to question? Can the janitor walk in, put his mop down and grill someone on the stand? Or was it a prosecutor’s questions he answered? I’m guessing the latter. Just a hunch.

You arguing that I don’t know what I’m talking about is like saying I’m incorrect because I said I was run over by a red Ferrari when in reality I was run over by a red Porsche. I’m not a big car guy, but either way the point is I was run over. But way to go, you pointed out an inaccuracy, that must invalidate my entire argument.

But wait! You said: “He [Bill Clinton] was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. And the penalties wasn’t (sic) so severe. He wasnt kicked out of office. He was only disbarred from practicing law…” Bill Clinton was found guilty by the House and acquitted by the Senate. So you weren’t TECHNICALLY correct. Then, in a separate case, he was disbarred by the state of Arkansas from practicing law for five years, also in a case he was not found guilty of perjury, like Scooter Libby was. Do your inaccuracies invalidate your underlying point?

Next up is my favorite, and I’m so freaking happy you said this:

“Was not covert.”

Really? Have you picked up a newspaper in the last three months? For your education, here’s Patrick Fitzgerald’s filing of an unclassified history of Valerie Plame’s employment history with the CIA, but I’ve posted it on the site as well. Patrick Fitzgerald, by the way, is a Republican appointed by a Republican President, and the Judge presiding over this case and the sentencing is a conservative also appointed under a Republican. Just thought it warranted mentioning.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/index.html

Sorry, you can’t make this argument anymore. This proves you’re wrong, and if you got your news from anywhere else but Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, then you’d probably know the truth. Spouting GOP talking points probably feels safe and familiar to you, but you may want to broaden your horizons a bit.

After this, here was your rebuttal to my statement:
"Regardless of the fact that the Prosecutor did not find anyone had clearly broken a law,"“See? Now you admit that there was no underlying crime. But "regardless of the fact"?”

YES “regardless of the fact”! It’s a criminal investigation! Does the government do this for shits and giggles? You’re a government employee being questioned under oath. Tell the fucking truth. Is that so hard? And now you’re running in circles, because you made a point that it was the grand jury that found him guilty, not the prosecutor. So what the hell are you talking about here? His perjury is separate from the criminal investigation, but a crime as well. I’m not sure why you and your ilk are so quick to point out that the investigation didn’t lead to any other convictions (yet). Obstruction of justice is a crime in and of itself, and he was found guilty. Whatever conclusion the investigation he obstructed (and he did) resulted in has no bearing on his crime.

Your next attack was on my statements regarding the previous administration, the “left” and their double standard in regards to Bill Clinton’s trials and tribulations. When I say “People in our government need to know that they cannot lie, especially when they're under oath. Period” I mean it. To sideswipe that qualifying statement with a broad attack on my entire side of ideology is disingenuous and lame, and I won’t let you get away with it. I am not represented by everyone on the internet you heard defend Clinton, I speak for myself and I say what I mean.

You and I both know too that that entire investigation and many of the allegations against him were politically motivated bullshit. He still can’t lie under oath, and should be held accountable. But these two cases are fundamentally different: a COVERT CIA agent was exposed, a legitimate reason for an investigation, and a legitimate reason to pursue perjury and obstruction charges against someone who didn’t cooperate. The Whitewater prosecution was a political witch hunt of the most disgusting and unnecessary degree. Even if you wouldn’t admit this to your Bush loving friends you know it’s true.

As for the names you requested I Google, I did, and Bill Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned either of those men. I wasn’t aware he did, but what he did was just as slimy as what Bush did. You make me out to be a Clinton apologist, and I am in no way. He behaved unbecoming of a President on many occasions, which I have always said. But does the fact that others have done this make it O.K.?

Also, here is a neat little difference between the behavior of our two Presidents, though: Clinton’s indiscretions were to cover up an affair that hurt him and his wife. Bush’s indiscretions involve illegally spying on American citizens (check out the FISA laws), imprisoning people without due process (they’re human beings, they deserve it regardless of what they’ve done or what we think of them), and most importantly pushing a case of flawed intelligence in order to send our country to a needless war directly resulting in the deaths of 3,500 US soldiers and thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi nationals. Again, you cannot rationally compare the two.

And finally, your last statement:
“And you havent a clue as to what the founding Fathers envisioned.”

Let me ask you a question: do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of this? Was this in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish? One of the main tenants of their work was the system of checks and balances put in place to stop the President from ruling unchecked and at whim. In fact, many scholars argue that the Founding Fathers never intended the office of the Presidency to have even close to the power it holds today. The modern Presidency is something completely different, and the current administration has, yes, PERVERTED it to new extremes.
In fact, here is a little something from the Notes of Debate from the Constitutional Convention in regards to the powers of the President that I think you may want to brush up on:

Art: II. Sect. 2. "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U. S. &c"
Mr. RANDOLPH moved to "except cases of treason." The prerogative of pardon in these cases was too great a trust. The President may himself be guilty. The Traytors may be his own instruments.
Col: MASON supported the motion.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS had rather there should be no pardon for treason, than let the power devolve on the Legislature.
Mr. WILSON. Pardon is necessary for cases of treason, and is best placed in the hands of the Executive. If he be himself a party to the guilt he can be impeached and prosecuted.
Mr. KING thought it would be inconsistent with the Constitutional separation of the Executive & Legislative powers to let the prerogative be exercised by the latter. A Legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose. They are governed too much by the passions of the moment. In Massachusetts, one assembly would have hung all the insurgents in that State: the next was equally disposed to pardon them all. He suggested the expedient of requiring the concurrence of the Senate in Acts of Pardon.
Mr. MADISON admitted the force of objections to the Legislature, but the pardon of treasons was so peculiarly improper for the President that he should acquiesce in the transfer of it to the former, rather than leave it altogether in the hands of the latter. He would prefer to either an association of the Senate as a Council of advice, with the President.
Mr. RANDOLPH could not admit the Senate into a share of the Power. the great danger to liberty lay in a combination between the President & that body.

Is it possible that the directive for Libby to lie, cover up or obstruct came from either the Vice-President or President himself? Would that really truly surprise anyone? If that is the case, then this dialogue is incredibly pertinent and insightful. The Founding Fathers were worried that what just happened would happen, and they felt it would be wrong. We probably won’t know either way, but it’s improper for Clinton or Bush pull this kind of thing.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers wanted their country to look like, and I can say with confidence that they didn’t intend for the bullying, corrupt thinly veiled theocracy we have now. George W. Bush regularly wipes his ass with the Constitution, and there’s a hell of a lot of us (70% of the country at last check) that are sick and tired of it.