« 80,277 reasons why Sandy seriously ought not fret so much about whether the Libby commutation threatens the Republic (or even The New Republic) | Main | We are bloggers, hear us roar »
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
You know you are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome
... when you become incensed that he says this:
"I rule nothing in or nothing out," Bush said when asked about whether he might pardon Libby before leaving office in January 2009.
You and I, gentle readers and fellow pundits, can speculate and prognosticate and ruminate to our hearts' content, and no one seriously accuses us of trying to subvert the justice system, implement a coup d'etat, or take over the world on the basis of our carefully structured analyses spun from pundit-sugar.
But that's exactly what Dubya was suspected and explicitly accused of during the four years before the commutation decision, during all of which time he refused to rule anything in or out. It's exactly what Dubya was accused of when he made the commutation decision yesterday. And it's what he's being accused of now that he is, once again, refusing to rule anything in or out as of today for the future.
At least ever since there were rather severe consequences to the phrase "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" in 1170, chief executives have tried to be more discrete.
Posted by Beldar at 05:08 PM in Law (2007) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to You know you are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) Carol Herman made the following comment | Jul 3, 2007 10:34:27 PM | Permalink
Bush's smartest move, to date.
And, up ahead? The Bonkey pullout agenda for Irak. Won't amount to much.
But for the balls moving towards the 2008 elections, Bush won't win the Bonkeys over. Nor does he have to.
As things go for them, it's not a very bright '08, coming up. What are they offering?
Obma-sigh-ah? For Ma-sigh-ah?
Hillary? Who wants it. So she's gotta toss other contendahs off her stage.
And, Bloomberg. With the billions. But for what? A shot at upsetting even more Bonkey voters off the track?
Most interesting is the focus on Rudy. Because he seems to claim the independent voters. And, the ones not snagged up by churches, still fight Roe.
As to the senate, I think things are gonna rumble. Their rules favor their "elders." As if being there the longest is a religious experience, putting you on tops of committees. And, even in charge of handing out keys to office space.
In a world changed by the Internet. For instance. Everything you know about Fred, you learned here.
And, everything you know about Mike Gavel, you also learned, here; by people into joshing.
Yes, the conventional way to run is very expensive.
And, the primaries don't even happen until February '08 STARTS. So, all the wrangling? It's just for primary spots and slots.
And, Al-Kay-duh may be in the same shape as those doctor terrorists; London and Glasgow is just providing lawyers with the details that they'll be tried. As enemy combatants?
You don't think the British folk aren't all riled up?
You think the stuff that keeps the Internet busy isn't loaded with a lot of watching people, who've tuned out the pundits?
Anyway, there are real fights ahead, outcomes as unknown as the future is to us. While backstage has always roiled with egotistical fights.
Only out front, the audience sees what's been rehearsed. It's actually possible that backstage may be more entertaining for awhile?
Brilliant Constitution!
And, a welcome 4th.
(2) hunter made the following comment | Jul 4, 2007 11:26:56 PM | Permalink
I think one of the reasons he commuted the case, besides the logical and ethical one of permitting the appeals process to go forward with Libby free, as is done in the majority of cases, is to drive the BDS mob wild with paranoic and hilarious delusions.
(3) ed in texas made the following comment | Jul 5, 2007 9:01:57 AM | Permalink
The thing that really pisses them off about Bush is not what he says.
It's that he's still speaking.
(4) fred made the following comment | Jul 11, 2007 5:28:12 PM | Permalink
Why not Sharon MacDougal Libby, i.e., force him to talk about Cheney or face contempt?
The comments to this entry are closed.
