Shallow Jess

Jessica McBride's lack of intellectual depth is really sometimes stunning. Her most recent plunge into the shallow end of the pool regards an article in the New York Times, written by Adam Liptak, and titled, "For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy." She claims in her post titled, "The Libby False Analogy," that Mr. Liptak has provided a false analogy in the article by comparing Bush's pardon of Libby to a lack of pardons in capital crimes when Bush was governor of Texas. She huffs:

The critics say that Bush's action in the Libby case is wrong becaus he didn't commute the sentences of many death row inmates in Texas.

For starters, obviously, the death row inmates committed capital crimes. Actually, that's the end of the argument. They are murderers with special circumstances.

So: No story.

She concludes by saying the New York Times finally comes up with reasons that prove the analogy doesn't hold water, but these are buried ... bad New York Times.

I have read and reread the article and can only come to one conclusion ... McBride's treading water and barely staying afloat when all she needs is to put her feet down to touch bottom.

The article had nothing to do with what critics of the Libby action may be saying. The article is entirely a discussion about the history of Bush's policy toward clemency, which has been (essentially) if you're guilty of the crime, you pay the consequences. Liptak writes:

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

Liptak then ponders whether Bush has changed his standard for clemency because it has been documented that clemency, for Bush, was reserved for cases of "demonstrable actual innocence," a far different cry from his decision in the Libby case. The article concludes with this:

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, "Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon."

The article simply explores this seeming discontinuity of Bush's action towards Libby ... at no time making a statement about the right or wrong of Bush's decision.

That is a far cry from the insinuations by McBride ... insinuations that have no basis in fact. But then, McBride has never been one to let facts get in the way of a partisan hack piece. Quick, someone throw her an inflatable doll, she's sinking fast.

Thick as a Brick

More evidence that many conservatives are very twisted and very odd people ... regarding the script being passed around that the Libby episode was purely political (you know who is leading the charge). This from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, via Anonymous Liberal (the highlighted text mine):

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political." I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

Jessica Mcpocrisy

Oh heck, I just commented over at Jessica McBride's (first time for everything), but really should have posted it here. Here is what poor Jessica has to say about Scooter Libby:

Remember that Libby was convicted of lying in a politically-motivated investigation into something that wasn't a crime. In other words, he covered up something that wasn't criminal.

Hmmm. Replace the name Libby with Clinton and you get a healthy dose of understanding into conservative hypocrisy.

You Can Call Me Scooter

In lieu of recent events, I have decided to undertake the legal means to rename my children. I'm certain that my wife and I do the best we can raising the three little urchins ... others have said as much, too. But a little precaution can go a long way.

So, from now on when referring to my 11 year-old son, my six year-old daughter, and my baby daughter, please call them Scooter. At least I can be assured that should any of the three become involved in some unforeseen illegal activty, their chances of avoiding jail when convicted (like Scott "Scooter" Jensen), or receiving amnesty though having lied during trial (like "Scooter" Libby) are increased.

You can never be too careful. I could take the extra step and have them join the Republican party, but that's going just a bit too far.