I guess we have finally reached the point where we need to bring out the big time conservative whiner, Ann Coulter, to defend the poor, persecuted Republicans. The bright, shining ideological light of the Republican party. Is this the same Ann Coulter who just created a stir by smearing John Edwards? Yes, I guess it is. Well, I guess when you are on the run you grab help for your case from whatever quarter you can find, regardless of how tawdry it might be.

Poor Ann, she is beside herself! Why can't America see that conservative Republicans are the guys in the white hats? They valiantly stand for everything that is right for the country because nonconservative Americans are too dim to know what is best themselves. Hence, we have conservative Republicans to light the way because they know best. They always know best, on any issue. Ask anyone of them and they will tell you that it is so.

So, it is indeed a tragedy that Republicans are always persecuted with legal action in spite of the good they try to do. While those lowlife Democrats get away with murder! Such a double standard that well meaning Republicans have to endure!

Well, there can be any number of reasons for such a predicament. The first one that comes to mind is perhaps the Republicans who have endured legal difficulties, as so carefully enumerated by Ms. Coulter, are not quite as bright as they hold themselves out to be. While, on the other hand, the Democrats mentioned are brighter than their less fortunate Republican counterparts.

Another possible reason that comes to mind is that perhaps the unfortunate Republicans mentioned actually broke a law. Imagine that! And, on the other hand, the devious Democrats did not break a law. Or perhaps they had some connection that ensured they would not be grabbed by the long arm of the law. But, regardless, they surely had to have broken the law from a Republican point of view, hmm.

I think I will continue to believe that if legal action has been taken against an individual, then it was warranted. And if not, the case will not stand on its own merits in a court of law. The Libby case is a good example of that. You lie under oath, you get convicted. And we have the Wilson's civil action against Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney in the near future as well. It will be interesting to see how that turns out as well, won't it?

Your dubious advocate, Ms. Coulter is truly being sanctimonious when she contends that "Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers." On the contrary, Republicans play the game in as vicious a mode as is possible just as the Democrats do. Republicans are not angels by any stretch of the imagination. The advantage in the rough and tumble world of politics shifts back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. What seems to be different today is that Republicans just can't get accept that the pendulum has begun to swing away from them. Hopefully, it is soon enough for Democrats to finally pull this country out of the various messes we find ourselves enmeshed in.

Will Mr. Bush pardon Mr. Libby? It wouldn't surprise me. But that's fine. That "get out of jail" card is available to presidents of both parties. It will all boil down to the degree of fallout President Bush is willing to endure.

Jim,

Actually, I did offer up more than one fact in my response to Ross. One fact concerned Mr. Libby's conviction for four felony counts including perjury and obstruction of justice. This is no figment of anyone's imagination. It is a cold, hard fact. The problem seems to be a serious case of denial among Republicans about Mr. Libby's conviction. Republicans just cannot bring themselves to accept this outcome. Things just haven't gone their (i.e. Republican's) way lately. I guess when things begin to unravel it can get pretty bad, pretty quickly. But, in my view, Mr. Libby's guilty judgement was an appropriate outcome for lying under oath. Mr. Libby is not the first to be tried for perjury and he won't be the last.

Another fact that I mentioned concerned Ms. Coulter's claim that "Republicans are gutless appeasers." This is a gross misrepresentation. During the last six years Republicans have reacted viciously to anyone who has questioned their policies. This includes the Wilson issue and Mr. Libby's and Vice President Cheney's role in the sordid affair. I look forward with great anticipation to the forthcoming civil trial for these two characters, these two great pillars of our current Republican administration.

I read a great article by Mr. Rich, by the way, concerning a pardon for Mr. Libby. He believes that President Bush will pardon Mr. Libby.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11rich.html?hp

Ross,
Let me approach this from another angle in two steps. You question whether Libby should ever have been tried in the first place.
(1) Well, Libby was an important witness in the federal investigation of who leaked Valerie Plame's name. It was no surprise to me that he was questioned in the conduct of this investigation because of the position he held and the contact he had with the media. Now he chose to lie to federal investigators while under oath. I don't care whether he was guilty of leaking Ms. Plame's name or not. By lying to federal investigators he committed a felony offense. What is so hard to understand about that? Is it me that is being obtuse? He lied under oath. That was a federal offense. You do not do that. Libby is a lawyer. He was represented by very competent counsel and he still lied. Is he stupid or what? I suspect I know why he lied but it's only speculation..he was covering the tails of others. But, nevertheless, he was accused of lying. Now at this point two people can choose to disagree and the natural response to that is, "I'll see you in court." Which is exactly what happened.

(2) Now would a court case have been conducted in the first place if the prosecutor had no grounds upon which to charge Mr. Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice? The case would have been thrown out if no grounds for trial existed. If a trial was conducted there was legal recognition that an issue of law existed, it was not a frivolous exercise which was a waste of everyone's time. You act as if this is a travesty of justice. He was accused of lying under oath and it was taken seriously. You seem to take the position that since he did not leak Ms. Plame's identity that federal investigators should just let Libby go free even though he lied to them...let's let bygones be bygones. Well, he broke the law! It's totally irrelevent whether he outed Ms. Plame or not. He lied under oath and there are severe penalties for doing that and he knew it. Mr. Libby had his day in court and he was convicted by a jury of his peers. It was a totally proper outcome for his actions.

So, should Libby have been tried? You bet.

Apparently, the leak of Valarie Plame's identity was a crime. Please reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Career

Quote:
"Some press accounts have raised questions about whether or not the CIA still considered Plame a "covert" agent––that is, the precise nature of her "classified" status or the type of "cover" that she had and whether or not it was "official" or "non-official"––at the time she was outed in the Novak column of July 14, 2003. However, the Grand Jury indictment states that Ms. Plame was in a classifed employment staus with CIA. Yet, as Johnson observes in his Congressional testimony previously cited:

These [disparaging] comments [by members of the press and others in the public debate] reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected."

I think about things Ross regardless of what you believe. I guess you like warm, supportive comments that always embrace your view of the world. There are two sides to every story. The problem here is that the Libby affair is a highly partisan issue and it is difficult for some to give themselves a fact based view of the issue.

Should Libby have been tried? Absolutely. Should he have been questioned. Absolutely. The outcome speaks for itself.