Today's Letters: Justice misses the mark in Libby guilty verdict
By LETTERS TO THE EDTIOR
Published March 9, 2007
Libby is convicted in CIA leak case March 7, story
As far as I'm concerned, the wrong man was found guilty in this trial. Yes, of course, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby did perjure himself under oath and is guilty of that. Although that's but a mere pittance compared to revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, which is what this entire ordeal was about. And no one, but no one, has been found guilty of revealing Valerie Plame's name to the press.
While all of us have a hunch who the big honcho is, I doubt that person will ever be outed. This character is too slick and is quite comfortable hiding behind a masquerade. In any case, Libby will probably serve two years in one of those resort-type prisons. He isn't exactly what I would call your typical criminal. Basically, I think that he was just being a good guy and carrying out the orders given to him - perhaps by his former boss.
And for being such a good boy and not spilling the beans, the end result may even be a big fat reward for Libby - like a full-blown presidential pardon. In this particular case, though, my belief is that Libby well deserves a pardon and even more. Libby is definitely not the main man, just the patsy.
JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater
Conviction is wrong
Scooter Libby was shafted the other day by a tainted judicial system that was simply out to get him. This guy is innocent and few should be surprised when the president takes pen in hand and pardons this former top assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Democrats must be smiling indeed with this conviction - but it is wrong! With millions in legal fees and all the games having been played out, President Bush should do the right thing and let Libby go free. The judicial system failed all Americans with this ridiculous conviction. It means it could happen to any citizen and it's just plain wrong.
Kevin B. Kamen, Palm Harbor
Pardon is probable
So, Scooter Libby was convicted and could get up to 25 years. Anyone want to make a bet that President Bush pardons him as he leaves office in late 2008? After all, it is most likely that Libby shielded Vice President Dick Cheney.
John Miller, Tampa
Tale of two lies
I'm terribly disappointed in many right-wing media pundits - and their hapless followers -for continuing to mislead the public (and themselves) about the Scooter Libby perjury conviction. They do so in a way that sheds light not only on their treatment of their facts in this case and the Iraq invasion at large, but also on the notion that they will believe any lie they choose if it furthers their right-wing agenda.
It's also interesting that these Republican apologists rely on some blatant double standards to make their case about the "illegitimacy" of the Libby verdict to their audience. If I remember correctly, President Clinton was impeached and even tried in congressional hearings for the same crime for which Libby was convicted on Tuesday: perjury.
The startling difference is that President Clinton's lie was about an extramarital affair that did not threaten national security whatsoever, whereas Libby's lie was about covering up for others in the Bush administration who were falsifying CIA intelligence to justify the deadly occupation of Iraq.
Which is the worse lie should be a no-brainer, but apparently that is lost upon the perpetual defenders of anyone with an "R" after his or her name, no matter how deadly the offense.
Michelle Kenoyer, Riverview
Libby's fallout March 8, editorial
A partisan focus
I read the editorial with a great deal of interest, hoping to understand what the editorial board thought about the conviction of I. Lewis Libby. The facts of the case were explained in great detail by the board and why they agreed with the verdict.
Then I read the last paragraph, and I was suddenly confused when it mentioned how power can corrupt the White House and discredit its critics. I wondered why the board would suddenly focus on the Clinton White House and lying to the FBI and the grand jury.
But then I read the references to Watergate, Iran-Contra and other Washington scandals and realized that the editorial board meant to write about the Republican scandals and not the Clinton White House.
Van Vergetis, Holiday
Avoiding inconvenient personal responsibility March 7, Debra J. Saunders column
Trashing Al Gore
We were surprised to see this column on Al Gore and his big power-burning mansion. We'd mistakenly thought the global warming question had pretty much been settled. Even then, "agnostics" still deserve a fair hearing, don't they? No matter that they run the country, dominate our energy use, and reign over our foreign policy, these ideologists of the wholly free market must have equal time to oppose tens of thousands of scientists worldwide.
And now here's that rich Al Gore suddenly in the limelight getting an Oscar for his bully documentary on the dangers of carbon dioxide, while his mansion uses power like a nuclear furnace. Isn't he just another rich hypocrite telling us to use less energy? (No implication of class warfare here; where rich liberals are involved the key word is hypocrite.)
So the deconstruction of Al Gore begins again just in case he marches with his global warming flag into the 2008 election. Because he owns a mansion and uses lots of electricity like thousands of other millionaires, instead of living in a trailer and riding his bike to lecture, he's labeled a lying hypocrite, even by the liberal media. Give our intelligence a break.
A.J. L'Hoste, St. Petersburg
Legislators want pregnant girls reported March 7, story
So the next step will be having young girls being tattooed and bar-coded?
State Sen. Ronda Storms and Rep. Dennis Baxley need to refresh their knowledge of "invasion of privacy" and aim for more positive means of "helping" those who have issues they are struggling with. The direction they are headed is reminiscent of the Salem witch trials.
Mary Parker, St. Petersburg
Legislators want pregnant girls reported March 7, story
Going too far
Why must there be a law to force the reporting of all underage pregnancies? I agree that some of these cases may need to be investigated, but there is a major boundary that is being crossed. Unfortunately, children do have sex and children do get pregnant. Bad choices are made by everyone, and there are victims of sexual crimes.
Sexual crimes happen every day, but I think that implementing this system would only cause the victims of those crimes to become confused and afraid to come forward.
Blurring the line between privacy and confidentiality is a dangerous game, especially when our children are involved.
Brittannie Collins, Lithia
[Last modified March 8, 2007, 21:54:22]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]