Libby Poll
 

So, it seems we are done playing the "Beat around the Bush" game (Pun Intended). I was wondering where we all sit on this issue, as far as the sentance.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/poli...11000306052007

30 months is fair, especially considering that he'll likely only serve until Bush pardons him in the final days of the administration.

Exactly - when is 30 months not 30 months? You know when...

As least our long national nightmare will be over then.

While he'll probably be pardoned, it would have been better to set a more strict sentence for the effect of better deterrence. He lied to protect people who are guilty of releasing the name of a NOC for political bullshit, and that cannot happen. It should be unthinkable to protect people who abuse power.

Shouldn't it be unthinkable for the president of the United States to pardon Libby, before he makes a full disclosure of who he was protecting when he lied to Plame CIA leak investigators, and to the Grand Jury, and why, as an criminal defense attorney and National Security advisor to both the president and the VP, he would impede such an investigation, especially during a time of war?

Polls support my contention that there is little popular support for pardoning Libby:
http://pollingreport.com/whprobe.htm

The president said we are "at war". Deliberately leaking classified information during war time, aggravated by the fact that the leak resulted in exposure of a covert CIA veteran and a CIA front company investigating WMD proliferation, seems to be treasonous. Knowing who did it and interfering with investigation of the leaking, requested by the CIA, seems to be conspiring with the treasonous leaker.

Why does a campaign by a hyperactive partisan republican noise machine attempting to convince us that what I described, is not "what happened", now that we know that Valerie Plame Wilson was covert and that Libby is guilty, change anything with regard to the facts in this controversy<h2>?</h2>

We are at war.
Libby covered for people in the executive branch who intentionally outed a covert CIA agent.

The CIA asked for a criminal investigation of the leak.
The president promised to cooperate in the investigation and fire anyone found to be leaking.

The white house never asked it's in house security chief to investigate the CIA accusation that the leaking of classified information resulted in the outing of a covert CIA agent.

Libby's prosecutor told the jury that a "cloud hangs over the VP". The VP and Libby, himself, did not testify during Libby's trial in any effort to clear up the matter or to defend Libby.

Wouldn't a presidential pardon of Libby, before congressional investigations of the matter are completed, and without Libby making full disclosure, hurt the "war effort", and make the president look like he is indifferent about what Libby did....to those working in the CIA, and to all of the rest of us unaffected by partisan republican spin?

It's unthinkable, but inevitable. I don't think there's any way short of executing Libby before Bush can pardon him to block a pardon. This investigation, among many others, has been impeded since the get go. I'm obviously not saying it's right, Libby should pay for his crimes, but it's likely.

Likely....Libby will be out on good behavior, and sporting a sweet Tan before Bush leaves office anyway.

It will be interesting to see if Bush follows DoJ pardoning guidelines:

Agreed, it's not like Dick forgot to wear his depends or something.

Since Libby committed no crime, other than obstruction of the investigation, the sentence seems a bit out of proportion.

If we're going to send people to jail for obstructing justice (which I support), a couple of heads of the FBI, Bill Clinton, and Hillary should be on death row.