Anyone wonder if there will be a pardon of Scooter Libby in the next 5 minutes?

Were this a Bush kerfuffle and Team Bush did its own investigation, do you think there's a moonbat within 3000 miles who wouldn't call FOUL?

Were this a Bush kerfuffle, he'd refuse to "comment on an ongoing investigation". See how he handled Fitzgerald's (the same Fitzgerald, in fact) investigation into the Valerie Plame mess. Unlike this case with Blagojevich, people in Bush's camp were directly targeted by that investigation, and not only did he not disclose any information publicly (exculpatory or otherwise), he actively stonewalled the investigation. There's suspicion, voiced by Fitzgerald himself, that that includes the perjury of Scooter Libby, a suspicion deepened by Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence.

If some Senator from Texas had gotten involved in a bribery scandal after the 2000 election, I doubt Democrats, or their netroots, would try to tie it to Bush, especially if there was actual evidence that made such a tie unlikely (like we have in the Blagojevich case). Probably there would still be moonbats making the accusation, but they wouldn't be supported by the mainstream of either the Democratic party, or the progressive movement -- we'd call them moonbats ourselves.

NetStumbler, the Party of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds and now this Blago criminal scumball thank you for your ad hominem attacks, but face it, trying to be witty, you're no Al Franken. Don't let your keyboard write checks your monitor can't cash.

So let me get this straight, I am the one making ad hominem attacks?

Didn't you just threaten violence right there?

I'm still waiting for you to prove your innocence of the sodomy charges I assume you're involved in.

BTW, ad hominem would mean that I'm making an argument by attacking the character of the speaker. Read my comments on this again, and you'll notice this gag is a counterexample putting you in the seat of the accused, not an attack on your character. I don't think there's anything wrong with being homosexual, and it certainly doesn't make your arguments weak; your arguments are weak because they're based on ad hominem attacks, now directed at me. In a Rovian twist, you're also "projecting", and saying I'm doing what you in fact are doing yourself.

So, prove your innocence, as you want Obama to, or I'll yell to every media outlet that'll listen how you're queerer than a three dollar bill. If people start thinking you're gay, it's your fault for not being forthcoming enough with evidence.

It's okay, liberals will still welcome you with open arms, at least until you start calling them names for being who they are.

I'm 100% sure he'll pardon Scooter Libby, and probably Ted Stevens, too.

Question is whether he'll try to do pre-emptive pardons for himself, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc.

I'd missed this one in my internet wanderings . i found out when i got one of those direct mailers the right perfected back with reagan . wow what a laugh , thanks libby dole for letting me know there is a possibility of representation who wont totally disegard me just because i am a non-believer . if you ever wanna see the lowest in direct mail just register non-partisan/indy , you'll get neat stuff from the right every damn day.

I love it when the Truth makes an appearance.

This is the typical 'lie about it, then refuse to cooperate, then become belligerent' tactic that Bush uses all the time.
- Remember the claims about WMD's?
- Remember Scooter Libby "not remembering"

And Palin's not even elected yet!

Unless I missed something Lewis "Scooter" Libby has not been pardoned; his sentence has been commuted. However, it would not surprise me to see him pardoned in Bush's final days in office.

I agree with rougy on this -- This is where my hatred of U.S. Government comes from. The Bush Administration's complete disregard for the people and the law, and Congress's complete unwillingness to do their job. The power here is in Congress, or at least it was before they signed it away in exchange for being yelled at more quietly as they cower under their desks.

No. If Rove is convicted, Bush will pardon him. He pardoned Scooter Libby (and he was only Cheney's Chief of Staff) so why wouldn't he pardon Rove?

excellent post!
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. Two years into his five-year term, Wolfowitz was rebuked by the World Bank investigative committee for engineering an unethical pay and promotion package for his girlfriend and, after repeated calls for his resignation, stepped down on May 17, 2007. Wolfowitz is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. [Washington Post, 3/17/05, 5/18/07; Financial Times, 6/28/07]

Key Quote: “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for going to war].” [USA Today, 5/30/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is currently writing a memoir of his Pentagon work and teaching a course at Georgetown University “on the Bush Administration’s strategy behind the war on terrorism.” The Defense Department’s Inspector General found that Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon “developed, produced, and then disseminated” deceptive intelligence that contradicted “the consensus of the Intelligence Community.” These groups are still under investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. [Washington Post, 1/27/05;Georgetown press release, 5/1/06; NYT, 2/9/07]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. In that position, he has led a smear campaign to attack Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. [Slate, 2/17/05; IPS, 4/9/07; Washington Post, 2/15/07]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

SCOOTER LIBBY

Role In Going To War: As Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Libby repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of a series of articles highlighting Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that were later entirely discredited. Along with Hannah, Libby was a principal author of the discredited draft UN presentation. [Washington Post, 6/5/03; National Journal, 4/6/06; FAIR, 3/19/07; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On June 5, 2007, Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the CIA leak case. On July 2, 2007, Bush commuted Libby’s prison sentence, ensuring he would serve no time in jail. [NYT, 6/5/07; Bush, 7/2/07]

Key Quote: “I’m a great fan of the Vice President,” Libby told Larry King in 2002. “I think he’s one of the smartest, most honorable people I’ve ever met.” [Time, 10/28/05]

JOHN HANNAH

Role In Going To War: As deputy national security advisor to Vice President Cheney, Hannah served as the conduit between Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and the Bush administration, passing along false information about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that the administration relied upon to justify the invasion. Hannah was also a principal author of the draft speech making the administration’s case for war to the UN. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA director George Tenet rejected most of the content of the speech as exaggerated and unwarranted. [Newsweek, 12/15/06; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On October 31, 2005, Cheney promoted Hannah to national security advisor, replacing the role served previously by Scooter Libby. [CNN, 10/31/05]

Key Quote: Reprising his role in misleading the country to war with Iraq, Hannah has told a U.S. ambassador that 2007 is “the year of Iran” and that a U.S. attack is “a real possibility.” [Washington Post, 2/11/07]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett announced his resignation on June 1, 2007 to pursue his “prospects in the private sector.” He was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and was responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [Washington Post, 6/2/07]

Key Quote: “Most people would argue we are part of the solution in Iraq, not part of the problem.” [CNN, 10/23/06]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. He released a memoir in April 2007 critical of many in the Bush administration for their roles in the Iraq war and currently teaches at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service. [Washington Post, 6/3/04; CBS, 4/29/07]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He succeeded Henry Kissinger in May 2006 as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. Rumsfeld is now “working on setting up a new foundation…to promote continued U.S. engagement in world affairs in furtherance of U.S. security interests” so that he can “remain engaged in public policy issues.” He is also shopping a memoir, in the hopes of receiving “a large cash advance.” [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06; Washington Times, 5/18/07; NY Sun, 6/27/07]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite some conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” Cheney continues to advocate for preemptive military intervention, recently delivering threats toward Iran in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast. [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06; NYT, 5/11/07]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point — nearing the levels of Richard Nixon during Watergate. [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/19/07]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

deedub81
I don't really intend on starting a huge political debate that's all been said a million times before, in the end I'm sure we'll walk away from this and both not be anymore convinced of one another's points. But it does seem to me that if you say "Everybody hates Bush but has no clue how much good he's done...", it just seems to me that you haven't really listened to the people that oppose his reasoning.

I get it, Saddam was a bad man. I understand. But first of all, it's debatable whether or not what Bush's Administration did will actually "spread freedom abroad". I can assure you, it won't be such a pretty picture in the end. And yes, you can say "well you don't know that yet". Yes, however, the people who have opposed him from the beginning have been right about -everything- else thus far. Not to mention this war has been going on for about 6 years now and things in the Middle East aren't too spectacular. Everything the Administration has promised us, every reason they gave for their actions (aside from "Saddam is a bad man") turned out to be completely false (IE- he had WMDs). Not to mention, like said before (about a million times), there was absolutely no link to 9/11, which again was his initial reasoning behind the war. It's been lie after lie with this man, and now with the "Scooter" Libby fiasco going on, his ratings are just plummeting (not that they were fine before Libby). Everyone (not just half of us) is finally seeing just how backwards and corrupt the administration is, and it's showing in his ratings.

Q: What do Libby and global warming have in common?

A: No one with the facts cares.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Joe-Wilson-Opening-statement-re-Libby-commutation

>>> I dislike Olbermann, an insincere, smarmy prick if ever there ever was one on the air. I can't believe even the leftists who like his op-eds can stand him. Keep an eye on him here:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

>>> I hate to begin with Slick Willie, but all this concern over the Libby non-issue weighs less than a feather when compared to the last-day-in-office pardons of Bubba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

>>> Reviews of recent history demonstrate to me that Democrats, the silly cult of personalities they are, don't give a rat's patoot about the rule of law. There's also the fiasco with Gonzalez over the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys in 2006, which was perfectly legal. Why Gonzalez, who did nothing wrong, didn't tell critics to politely f-off is beyond me. But he didn't, and now he too is stuck in a pointless Democrat snare wasting time, money and energy over a non-issue.

I voted for bush, I'll admit it. I've even defended several of his questionable decisions, even though I was over in the Gulf myself at the time. To my knowledge, Mr. Libby's supposed "crime" about revealing in identity of a CIA member wasn't necessarily a crime at all, because the CIA member wasn't even an agent. They were not someone who was in deep cover, if anyone wanted to find out who they were, it would be a simple matter of looking them up.

>>> I believe you are correct in your assessment of the Libby fiasco. To me it was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

Perhaps I'm wrong about what happened with the CIA member and Mr. Libby, but the very fact that Bush would release that man from jail before the appeals process had even started is against everything this justice system was created for. It is in a word : wrong. To the very core of the word.

>>> Libbygate means little or nothing to me; whether the man goes free or rots in prison has no bearing on the fate of the country. Keeping the scum in Gitmo locked up is more important.

>>> I voted for Bush, or rather, against these socialist tools the Victicrats keep offering up. Yeah, Bush has let all of us down one way or another, it's true. He's really a liberal with a few conservative tendencies. He's failed to secure the border, failed to vaporize what needs vaporizing in the Middle East and though he wouldn't have much pull even if he was for ending Drug Prohibition, his past abuses of alk and coke have left no mark of compassion on failed drug policy for those still being locked up for life over a joint.
For all his faults, Bush is nowhere close to being the chimera the moonbat left has tried to create of him. Why should I take anything the left has to say seriously? They remain in complete denial over the war on islamofascism and how tax cuts create wealth.

>>> Hamilton said corruption was the grease of democracy. Focus on what matters to you.

@ "BillOreilly"

The personal, moral scandals of the Bill Clinton presidency and the deliberate and politically inspired scandals of the George Bush presidency are worlds apart in their real effect on the lives of people in the US and abroad.


One thing not noted in this discussion is how Pres. Bush commuted Mr. Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him. In so doing he presented reasons for commuting the sentence that directly contradict his and his party's publically expressed opinions on how current sentencing practices are too lenient, which his Justice Department is working hard to crank up.

30 months for a nonviolent first offense was too much time in Libby's case, but apparently not enough for those who lie under oath that aren't friends of the President.

OMG, Olbermann is an idiot. He takes an old lie (Bush was selected, not elected) and tries to parlay that into a "back stab" against America when he commuted part of the sentence of Libby. Worse, almost everything Olbermann says is a lie. Bush waited until the appeals options to keep Libby out of jail were at an end, and he did indeed carefully consider the consequences of the pardon. Olbermann, though, lies lies lies.

Guess what? Libby was attacked by a runaway special prosecutor who had a personal vendetta against him, who continued prosecuting him even AFTER it was revealed he had no roll in the leak, looking for some contradiction between his words and anyone else's. Fitzgerald ought to be disbarred for his conduct, and Libby should have been given a full pardon, not a partial one.

"a better question is 'What part of that video is NOT nonsense?'"

How about this, raising children in a society that placates to political correctness where there are no standards and no judgments on bad behavior. This video not not specifically about God being removed from schools, it's saying that it was the beginning of a downward slide. It is not that God will keep your kids in line out of some supernatural fear but religion sets a standard of behavior and that there are certain things expected of you. When you remove the standards, you also remove any guidelines that children need in order to grow up with any sense of right and wrong.

Any critical thinker can take any one of these points in the video and see that they all have some adverse consequence. Seriously ask yourself what possible good can come of removing physical discipline or any disipline for that matter when the situation warrants it? What good can come of allowing underage students to have abortions and not have to inform parents? If you want to take Clinton episode and analyze it, the moment when he engaged in an extra-sexual affair outside of his marriage and lied about it, got caught and defended it; that behavior became acceptable. After all if our leaders can engage in this behavior and come away with no consequences, it must be perfectly all right for anyone else to to it. When you lie under oath and get away with it publicly, it sends a message of acceptance to the population. It was wrong when Clinton did it, and it was wrong when Libby did it.

I could go on.