Month: July 2007

Strange Bedfellows: Scooter Libby And Marc Rich

Posted by on July 3, 2007 at 5:29 pm. NO Comments :

Yesterday’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence has rocked Washington and the rest of the nation. Everybody’s got something to bitch about. Democrats are incensed that the President exhibits such contempt for law and order. Republicans are inconsolable that Libby didn’t get a full pardon.

One name keeps coming up as justification for Bush’s action. A name that, not surprisingly, seeks to refocus blame on the GOP’s favorite boogey man, Bill Clinton. It was Clinton that pardoned financier Marc Rich in a move that generated much controversy at the time. Republicans have jumped on that pardon in order to sanitize the President’s obvious special treatment of Libby.

But guess what? Scooter Libby was Marc Rich’s lawyer!

Libby represented Rich at the time the pardon was considered and granted. Libby even defended Rich before Congress while Libby was serving as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Here is a bit of Libby’s testimony:

“There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client [Marc Rich] based on the tax returns.”

“[Rich] had not violated the tax laws.”

So when you hear Republicans drag out the canard that Clinton did it too (as if that would make it OK), remind them that the man who is the beneficiary of Bush’s commutation agrees with Clinton’s decision to pardon Rich.

What’s more, the President does not agree with Clinton and said so at the time:

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn’t agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself.

Nevertheless, the President did make that decision on behalf of Libby. And that’s not all. It seems that the prosecutor of Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, also participated in the prosecution of Rich. And if your head isn’t spinning at this point, you are on some pretty potent psychotropic medication.

The Scooter Libby Fan Club

Posted by on July 3, 2007 at 10:47 am. NO Comments :

Newspapers are spitting out editorials on the Bush commutation of Scooter Libby’s jail sentence like bullets from an AK-47. Editor & Publisher has compiled a bunch already and there are a couple of strikingly notable standouts in the group. See if you can spot them:

New York Times: “…in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.”

Washinton Post: “…reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did – to probation and a large fine – is not defensible.”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “President Bush’s commutation of a pal’s prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system.”

Denver Post: “Libby should be held accountable for his crimes.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes.”

Wall Street Journal: “By failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco…”

New York Post: “Bush knows a pardon is warranted. He should grant it.”

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: “The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled. Like President Clinton’s 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty.”

New York’s Daily News: “Thankfully, Bush did not pardon Libby outright, but time in the slammer was in order. Sixty days, say, wouldn’t have hurt the justice system a bit.”

Chicago Tribune: “Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity.”

Arizona Republic: “President Bush whipped out a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is the wrong game to play on a very public stage.”

San Jose Mercury News: “Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like […] But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process.”

Sacramento Bee: “[Bush] has done himself no favors on that count by commuting the prison term of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby.”

Dallas Morning News: “…the last thing this president needed was to further antagonize Capitol Hill regarding abuse of executive power.”

Rocky Mountain News: “…the president should have restrained his compassion – and delayed his commutation – for at least a few more months, lest he be perceived as subverting justice”

Did you spot them? That’s right, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, and his object of desire, the Wall Street Journal. I can hardly wait to see what Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest of the Fox News law and order crowd have to say.

Sicko Is A Question

Posted by on July 2, 2007 at 10:19 pm. NO Comments :

In the first act of Sicko, Michael Moore introduces the audience to several unfortunate souls who have had to suffer both poor health and poor access to care. But that is not what the film is about. As it proceeds we meet individuals who have been mistreated by giant corporations that promised to protect their well being, but betrayed them when need arose. But that is not what the film is about. Moore takes us on a world tour of nations that offer services not provided in the U.S. They see these services as birthrights for fellow citizens who are human and in distress. But that is not what the film is about.

Most people’s expectations for Sicko probably encompass scenes that are part lecture to school the audience on the dry statistics of health care policy, and part screwball satire to illustrate points that Moore has preselected. But that is not what the film is about either.

While there is an abundance of information imparted in the course of the film, and there is much of the trademark humor for which Moore is famous, the most surprising ingredient is a generous portion of heart. This film is, at its core, a moving drama about genuine people whose hopes and fears are alarmingly similar to yours and mine if we were struggling with critical health issues – and some of us are – and all of us will.

But if there were one theme that could be rendered a conclusion, it would be that “we can do better.” Many critics of the film allege that Moore is merely bashing our current system and recruiting foreigners to help him do it. But I don’t see it that way. I see Moore asking us all a question: Why has a nation as great, as rich, as compassionate as this one is, fallen short with regard to caring for every ailing neighbor. I think Moore is baffled as to why other nations are able to accomplish something so fundamentally necessary for survival while our nation cowers before greedy conglomerates as if they were the ones deserving of sympathy.

After seeing this film, I left the theater feeling that I had experienced something that was enlightening, depressing, and inspiring, all at the same time. And I hope I also came away with a sense that there is work to be done to improve our country and ourselves. In that regard I think it is vitally important to heed the words of Tony Benn, a former member of the British Parliament who was interviewed by Moore:

We must not succumb to our fears and frustrations. There is too much at stake to allow ourselves to be led off the path.