I received the following photograph in email this morning. Of the many photos of US Servicemen in Iraq that I receive, this photo of an American military funeral seems to carry the most powerful message for me. I hope you will all join me in prayer for the American Servicemen in harm's way around the world, the families that wait for them to return or that are tragically left behind and for the young man in the picture, of whom his father would have been so proud.
It should be clear by now that the Harry Potter series is, in my view, a very special collection of stories. I am not alone. The quoted article below is particularly interesting to me as it discusses the Christian elements in the stories – instead of the normal diatribe against the series because of the influence of witchcraft (frequently written by people who have not read the stories).
Harry Potter and the Inevitable End
By La Shawn Barber
Monday, July 30, 2007
Warning: This review contains MAJOR spoilers. Do NOT read if you don't want to know how the Harry Potter series will end, who will die, and who will survive.
J.K. Rowling’s epic tale about an orphan boy who discovers he’s a wizard at age 11 comes to an end in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
The seventh and final book in the series sold a reported 11 million copies in the first 24 hours on sale, which broke the record for fastest-selling book. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince held the previous record at nine million.
The seven-book series has sold more than 325 million copies worldwide. The first five books have been made into top-grossing movies, and Rowling has been named one of the richest people in the world.
Not bad for a former divorced welfare mother who nursed cold cups of coffee in a café while writing the first book.
Love it or hate it, Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon. The series has produced a collection of books, research papers, blogs, podcasts, fan fiction, and fan conferences devoted to analyzing the text, positing theories, dissecting clues, and pouring over minutiae. The long tail of Harry Potter is so vibrant, even fans have fans.
Over seven books, Rowling has done a stellar job capturing our imaginations and immersing us in a wondrous world of magic, where the universal struggle between good and evil unfolds. Choice, loyalty, forgiveness, love, and sacrifice are major themes in the books. At the ripe middle age of 40, I’m not the least bit abashed to confess my affection for these “children’s” tales and for the way Rowling presents these themes in an engaging context.
The first 500 pages of Deathly Hallows are a hardcore Potter fan’s dream. Rowling superbly sets the novel’s tone in the first chapter, bringing on stage Severus Snape, arguably the most intriguing character in the entire series, though we don’t see nearly enough of him in the 759-page book.
After a heart-pounding airborne battle at the start, where two characters meet their demise, Rowling takes her time acquainting the reader with a setting that lacks the structure of a typical school year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Ministry of Magic has fallen to Lord Voldemort, the minister is dead, the Death Eaters are on the move, and 17-year-old Harry, Ron, and Hermione are on the run. No more Quidditch matches or treacle tart.
In the ensuing Horcrux hunt, the trio stumbles upon the legend of the “Deathly Hallows,” mysterious objects referenced in a book of wizard children’s fairy stories. But the objects are not legend. They are real and powerful, and Harry must decide if finding them is more important than finding Voldemort’s Horcruxes, the keys to vanquishing him.
The last third of the book races to the inevitable showdown between Harry and Voldemort at Hogwarts, with more deaths along the way. Wizards and magical creatures alike take part in the Armageddon-like war.
Overall, Rowling delivered what she promised in this well-plotted book, though it seems rushed toward the end. For instance, Snape’s true loyalties are revealed in one, too-short chapter, and the duel between Harry and Voldemort left me longing for more blood, tension, and terror. And Rowling didn’t have the heart to kill off main characters other than two we expected to die.
Does Harry defeat Voldemort? Yes. Does Harry die? Yes. And no.
Christian Literature?
In a previous Townhall column, Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians, I wrote about Christian-themed elements in the series (and touched on the occult controversy surrounding the books). Influenced by the work of John Granger, an Orthodox Christian, homeschooling father, college professor, blogger, and author of Looking for God in Harry Potter, I began to see these themes more clearly.
Rowling’s use of Christian themes and symbols across the series has been subtle, compared to how she uses them in the final book. Referring to earlier books, Granger writes, “Harry always dies a figurative death and is saved by love in the presence of a Christological symbol. The resurrection at story’s end each year is the culmination of that year’s cycle and transformation.” Rowling’s use of this imagery “marks her as a writer in the English traditions of writing faith edifying literature, what is often called ‘baptizing the imagination’ or ‘smuggling the gospel.’” In Deathly Hallows, Harry’s death and resurrection are more than figurative. A strong theme in the series is substitutionary sacrifice, laying down one’s life to save others. In the final book, Harry believes he must die, so he willingly goes to his “death.” His willingness to die for others saves him, and he’s resurrected, in a sense. Harry’s sacrificial death defeated death. And Christian readers can’t miss the symbolism of the Deathly Hallows themselves, three objects that conquer death. Across the series, wizards celebrate and observe Christmas and Easter and sing carols, but in Deathly Hallows, we learn that wizards are buried in a churchyard in Godric’s Hollow. On Harry’s parents’ headstone is the Bible verse, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). The headstone of late headmaster Albus Dumbledore’s mother and sister reads, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21) I suspect the series will become a classic, and future generations will discover its treasures. As John Granger explains, the series is so popular because it contains “themes, imagery, and engaging stories that echo the Great Story we are wired to receive and respond to.” Rowling may not have had such elevated intentions, but something in her stories resonates with millions all over the world. And it’s not Quidditch.
It is an old joke, with the edge that humor has when it contains more than a grain of truth, that liberals think government is the solution to society’s problems while conservatives think that government is the problem.
Ted Sorenson – legendary speechwriter for President Kennedy, seems to be comfortable with that description as he prepares a proposed acceptance speech for the Democratic Presidential Nominee – whoever that is going to be. They seem to forget that Kennedy wass so fiscally conservative – he might have been a Republican today.
My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/07/25/liberalism_dangerously_defined
Liberalism Dangerously Defined
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Ted Sorensen’s service to John F. Kennedy (as both US Senator and President) earned him legendary status as the most celebrated speechwriter in US history. Sorensen crafted the famous “Ask not…” phrase in the inaugural address, and wrote JFK’s stirring “New Frontier” acceptance speech when he won the Democratic nomination in 1960.
Last week, Sorensen (now 79) wrote another speech intended to inspire the Democratic hordes who scent victory in another watershed election. He wrote a proposed “Acceptance Speech” which he means to offer to whichever candidate prevails in the nomination fight.
Some of the carefully crafted language reads like vintage Sorensen – and could be reasonably effective if properly delivered by a skillful speaker. “In this campaign,” the speech declares, “I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest.”
At this point, however, Sorensen delivers a definition of unabashed liberalism, which, if echoed by the actual Democratic nominee, could guarantee victory for the GOP: “Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals – liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, bur rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, more prosperous America.”
Conservatives should rejoice at the prospect of fighting out an election campaign on precisely this question: is government indeed the “best means of creating” a better America—or is it an intrusive, annoying, arbitrary, largely destructive force that consumes too much of out time, energy and money.
I remain confident that the majority of our fellow citizens will warm much more readily to the Ronald Reagan formulation that “government isn’t the solution; government is the problem,” or the Jeffersonian declaration that “the government that governs best, governs least.”
Even Tom Paine, the Revolutionary pamphleteer generally beloved by the secular left, declared: “While human society general counts as a blessing to the individual, government at the very best amounts to a necessary evil.” In other words, Tom Paine directly contradicts the Sorensen approach.
Mitt Romney has recently lashed out at Hillary Clinton for suggesting the replacement of an “on your own society” with a “working together society.” As the former Massachusetts aptly observes, even welfare-state societies in Europe have begun rejecting that approach. He suggests that Hillary’s “working together,” “shared responsibility” mantra means that “she wouldn’t be elected President of France today, never mind the United States.”
Even Americans near the bottom of the economic ladder feel instinctive (and appropriate) revulsion to the liberal message that “you can’t make it on your hope” and that government provides your only hope. Optimism about personal advancement represents a core American trait that cuts across all racial, educational and ideological lines.
If the Democrats follow Ted Sorensen’s advice, and Hillary Clinton’s recent rhetoric, their victory in 2008 hardly amounts to a foregone conclusdion.
Senator Obama leaves no doubt that he is the liberal candidate in the Prez Sweekstakes. In his current campaign swing, he took far left positions on most issues to include labor regulation, universal health care (to include abortion) and called opposition to the immigration bill racist. Nice to know that we will be able to tell differences between the cnadidates of the various parties.
Obama's Ultra Liberal Campaign Swing
By Amanda Carpenter
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) called opponents of the Senate immigration bill “racist,” strutted picket lines and said universal health care should include abortion in his last week of campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President.
Obama made these controversial remarks at a trio of campaign stops for the National Council of La Raza, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and Planned Parenthood.
On Sunday, Obama addressed the Hispanic special interest group National Council of La Raza at the Miami Beach Convention Center. There, he said that the debate over the Senate’s failed immigration bill “was both ugly and racist in a way that we haven’t seen since the struggle for civil rights.”
He told participants that both Hispanics and African Americans have struggled to get access to health care and education and quoted a telegram Martin Luther King Jr. sent to Cesar Chavez in 1968: “Our separate struggles are really one. The civil rights movement wasn’t just for African Americans.”
“It doesn't matter if that struggle involves a brown man who is badgered again and again to prove his citizenship or a black man who's pulled over because his car is too nice,” Obama explained.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), who is also pursuing the nomination for President, headlined the NCLR event as well. Both Democrats spoke of their support for comprehensive immigration reform, universal healthcare and free in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
On July 21, Obama was in Des Moines, Iowa speaking at a rally for Council 61 of the American Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees.
“I stood on the picket line and marched with workers at the Congress Hotel in Chicago last week. I had marched with them four years earlier and I told them when I left that if they were still fighting four years from now, I'd be back on that picket line as President of the United States,” Obama told labor activists.
Obama also said that Washington “has thrown open its doors to the most anti-union, anti-worker forces we've seen in generations.”
The abortion lobby welcomed Obama at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s political organizing conference on July 17. At the Washington, D.C. event, Obama said he believed expanded insurance coverage under his proposed universal health care plan should cover “reproductive services.” Obama campaign staff later confirmed those reproductive services should include abortion.
In his speech, Obama took care to lay out his vision for the Supreme Court and touched on other issues he thought were important to women.
Indirectly referring to the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Obama said, “We know that five men don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for women’s health.”
"Justice Kennedy knows many things," Obama said of the Justice who penned the Supreme Court opinion that upheld the ban, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges,” Obama explained.
Of his Senate votes against the confirmation of Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Obama said, “There is nothing wrong in voting against nominees who don't share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about.”
Obama also said it was time for the government to offer “an updated social contract” that would give women paid maternity leave and keep children in school longer, to accommodate working mothers’ schedules.
Well, the waiting is over. The final book in the remarkable Harry Potter series has been released and the fate of the heroes and villains is now known – that is if you picked up the Book at the time of release, 12:01AM on Saturday morning, and read all day Saturday (784 pages). I have read it and know all the answers – but you won’t read it here (not today anyway) to give those of you who have a life time to catch up.
I have been a fan of this series since 2001. The first book, published in the US in 1998 was billed as a children's book but the series began to attract adult readers shortly thereafter and by book 3 the author was writing a different series that catered to the adult readers as well.
For those of you who have been living under a rock – the series deals with an orphan living in miserable and cruel circumstances who dreams of a future, any future, that is different from his current situation. At an appropriate age (in this case 11 years of age) he discovers that he is very special and has a destiny which is beyond his imagination. If this sounds familiar – it should. It is the plot line of any number of classic stories that have captivated audiences for hundreds of years from the King Arthur legends to the Star Wars movies.
In this case, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone (book #1 of the series), we learn that Harry is a wizard and is invited to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, that his mother and father (witch and wizard themselves) had been murdered ten years ago by an evil wizard who sought to dominate the wizarding world and that Harry is well known in that world as the “boy who lived” when the evil wizard who killed his parents tried unsuccessfully to kill him. The books are organized around the seven year curriculum at Hogwarts – very much like a British boarding school model – with each book describing the events a a single school year.
Much has been said about the evils of witchcraft from a religious point of view and the potential bad influence of the books – but I wonder if those who oppose these stories have even read the books. The witchcraft which is described is not satanic. It is merely a literary device to place the characters into an alternate dimension, which is then described in such loving detail as to be almost believable. But the themes of good vs evil, loyalty, bravery, sacrifice, friendship and coming of age are positive values with strong positive characters and role models. Author Rowling has crafted a series of books that almost defy classification. Fantasy – yes, political satire – certainly, adventure – oh yea.
The numbers are striking. 325 million copies of the books have been sold (prior to release of book 7) world wide in nearly 100 languages. The movie franchise has generated nearly five billion dollars for the first five movies. J K Rowling, the author, has come, in 11 years, from being a single mother on public assistance to being the wealthiest woman in Great Britain – possibly eclipsing the Queen. Nearly 12.5 million copies of book 7 is the expected first run in the US alone.
But the real magic of the stories is that there is a generation of children around the world who have stepped away from the computers and video games and learned that reading is fun. Children (of all ages, it turns out) have picked up these books and read them virtually cover to cover without taking a break – and these books exceed 700 pages – because they enjoyed them. The anticipation of the final chapter has been such that a cottage industry has grown up with the publication of a number of books discussing the likely plot twists and turns in the long awaited book 7. People around the globe have discussed and debated who will live and who will die in book 7 in computer forums and chat rooms. And I can only imagine how little internet traffic occurred yesterday as millions of readers locked themselves behind closed doors to read the newly released book 7.
The impact has been significant and world wide, the commercial value is almost without precedent, and the benefit to a generation of new readers – undeniable. I am almost sorry that the story has concluded – but I do not regret my reading even a single page of it. And when you all finish the book – we can discuss the plot surprises and the ending legacy.
Thank you, J K Rowling.
The attached article is interesting, but the conclusion is a little like saying that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics. His premise is that the lawyer in oral arguments before the Supreme Court that is asked more questions by the Justices tends to lose the case. The article author is extending that line of thought to state that in the 5–4 decisions in the last Court term, the side asked more questions by Chief Justice Roberts tends to be the loser.
I believe that the author is ignoring the fact that the Justices come to the oral argument fully prepared by written briefs of counsel, third party (Amicus) briefs and memoranda of law from their own clerks. It seems reasonable to me that the Justices would use the oral argument process for the purpose of giving the lawyers on both sides an opportunity to expand on areas that concerned the individual Justices in their case preparation. Expanding that to say that the side with more questions indicating more concerns by the Justices is likely to lose is somewhat redundant.
One of the cases mentioned in the article dealt with the question of determining whether a patent application is unique technology or so obvious to any person familiar with the literature of the field as to not deserve a patent. Better to have asked if the conclusion of the article is so obvious as to be a waste of newsprint. More useful, I would think, to conclude that the CJ is on the winning side in most of the 5–4 decisions – but we have already noted the shift by the Court with the Bush appointees in place.
Must be a slow news week at the Supreme Court (also somewhat obvious as the Supreme Court Term has ended until the first Monday in October)
My Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1184058397113
When in Doubt, Look to Roberts for Outcome of Supreme Court Cases
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
07-11-2007
In 2004, then-appeals court Judge John Roberts Jr. tested a newly discovered theory for predicting Supreme Court outcomes. Using oral argument transcripts, he tallied the number of questions justices asked of advocates in a significant sampling of cases.
Eighty-six percent of the time, Roberts reported in a talk to the Supreme Court Historical Society, the lawyer for the party that ultimately lost had gotten the most questions.
"The secret to successful advocacy," Roberts deadpanned in conclusion, "is simply to get the Court to ask your opponent more questions."
Now that Roberts, as chief justice, is one of the nine robed ones who get to ask the questions, it turns out that he, more than any other active questioner, is affirming that predictive pattern.
A new study indicates that in the 25 oral arguments that led to 5-4 decisions in the term just ended, the mean number of questions Roberts asked of the side he favored was 3.6. The side he voted against got a mean of 14.3 questions from the chief justice. Overall, in 23 of the 25 5-4 decisions, Roberts asked more questions of the side he voted against than the side he favored.
The numbers tend to support the growing perception that Roberts can be a sharp, even acerbic questioner. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the establishment clause case involving taxpayer standing, Roberts asked winning Solicitor General Paul Clement only three questions, while hitting Andrew Pincus of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, the lawyer for the losing foundation, with 23.
In one curveball, Roberts pointed to Court Marshal Pamela Talkin and asked Pincus if a taxpayer could sue her for reciting the words "God save the United States and this honorable Court" before each session. Pincus said no and explained his reasoning, but the justices were unconvinced.
Roberts also asked probably the most sarcastic question of the term, at the expense of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's Thomas Goldstein in the patent case KSR International v. Teleflex. At issue was the standard for determining when an innovation is so obvious that it does not deserve a patent. "Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious?" Roberts asked. "I mean, the least insightful person you can find?"
Breyer asked more questions of the side he opposed in 19 of the 25 cases; Justice Antonin Scalia, who enjoys toying with any and all lawyers before him, followed the pattern in 17 cases; and for swing voter Kennedy the number, predictably enough, was 13 of the 25 -- about half.
These findings are reported by University of Kansas psychology professor Lawrence Wrightsman, author of a forthcoming book of empirical analyses of Supreme Court oral arguments. Oxford University Press published his book "The Psychology of the Supreme Court" last year. Wrightsman also documented the fact last year that with the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the number of words oral advocates were able to deliver before being hit with a question shot up.
Wrightsman's latest analysis builds on a simple study performed in 2002 by then-Georgetown University Law Center student Sarah Shullman. She observed 10 oral arguments and found that in the aggregate, the side that ultimately lost got more questions -- and more hostile ones -- than the winning side. Her study was published in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. Roberts, in his historical society talk, modeled his own study after Shullman's.
Wrightsman and his students have now done a tally of all of the oral arguments of the past five terms and ended up finding a less strong correlation than was found in the earlier studies of either Shullman or Roberts. They determined that the winning side got fewer questions in only 60 percent to 65 percent of the Court's cases.
But the correlation is stronger in what Wrightsman has categorized as the ideological cases. In the term just ended, the losing side in ideological cases got more questions 73 percent of the time.
So, what to make of Roberts' penchant for asking more questions of the side he is against? One could argue that he is giving that side more opportunities to convince him -- and they fail. But Wrightsman thinks it suggests that Roberts comes to the argument with a "predisposition." He adds, "I don't want to say he has already decided the case, but he is setting a higher standard for one side than for the other."
I found the story of the administrative law judge suing his dry cleaner (reported previously in these pages) to be almost unbelievable (but not in this day and age). But it gets better. This fool is not going quietly into the night.
My source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1183712794216
Judge Who Lost $54M Suit Not Giving Up Pants Fight
Lubna Takruri
The Associated Press
July 9, 2007
An administrative law judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants is not giving up his fight against the South Korean immigrant owners of the business.
Roy L. Pearson notified their defense attorney of his plans to file a motion this week asking that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff reverse or clarify her verdict. Bartnoff ruled last month that Pearson should be awarded nothing.
Pearson is arguing that Bartnoff failed to address his legal claims when she ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.
The shop owners' defense attorney, Chris Manning, said the lawsuit already has created enough distress for his clients, Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. He is pleading with Pearson to drop the case and move on.
"He does not appear to be giving up anytime soon," Manning said. "This is very unfortunate for the Chungs, the D.C. taxpayers and for Mr. Pearson himself."
Pearson did not immediately return an e-mail request for comment.
Meanwhile, Manning has filed a motion in D.C. Superior Court asking the court to require Pearson to pay for the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association are sponsoring a July 24 fundraiser for the family.
The case, which drew international attention, began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later. A week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found, but Pearson denied that they were his and decided to sue.
Pearson's suit, which originally asked for $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city's consumer protection law -- which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation. It also included damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney fees for representing himself.
My thoughts on this Fourth of July commemoration, in the current political and world climate, go back to November 19, 1863, at the town of Gettysburg. The speaker was Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Have a safe holiday. Remember the hundreds of years of sacrifice and contribution that give us this day and be mindful of the sacrifices to come.
President Bush has acted to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. I believe this case was another example of politics and justice being mutually exclusive terms. I hope the President will, at a later date, consider a full pardon for Libby - but for now, Bush has done the right thing, in my view, despite a heavy political price that will have to be paid here.
Bravo ! Mr. President.
My Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial_38
Bush commutes Libby prison sentence
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago
|
WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak investigation Monday, delivering a political thunderbolt in the highly charged criminal case. Bush said the sentence was just too harsh. |
Bush's move came just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. That meant Libby was likely to have to report soon, and it put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.
"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," the prosecutor said.
Bush's decision enraged Democrats and cheered conservatives — though some of the latter wished Bush had granted a full pardon.
"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's decision showed the president "condones criminal conduct."
Unlike a pardon, which would have wiped away Libby's criminal record, Bush's commutation voided only the prison term.
The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years' probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.
Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."
Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Arms were secretly sold to Iran to gain freedom for American hostages, with the money funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua in spite of a congressional ban. Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, issued pardons for six former officials shortly before leaving office in 1992.
Testimony in the Libby case revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war.
Libby's supporters celebrated the president's decision.
"President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.
"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."
Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M. Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in his bid for re-election.
White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president.
On the other hand, Bush's action could help Republican presidential candidates by letting them off the hook on the question of whether they would pardon Libby.
A message seeking comment from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office was not immediately returned.
Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.
"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."
A spokeswoman for Cheney said simply, "The vice president supports the president's decision."
The White House said Bush came to his decision in the past week or two and made it final Monday because of the ruling of the appeals panel, which meant Libby would be going to prison soon.
The president's announcement came just as prison seemed likely for Libby. He recently lost an appeals court fight that was his best chance to put the sentence on hold, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons had already designated him inmate No. 28301-016.
Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.
The president noted Libby supporters' argument that the punishment did not fit the crime for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service."
Yet, he added: "Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."
Bush then stripped away the prison time.
The leak case has hung over the White House for years. After CIA operative Valerie Plame's name appeared in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles.
Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article. Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told.
Plame believes Libby and other White House officials conspired to leak her identity to reporters in 2003 as retribution against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who criticized what he said was the administration's misleading use of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. ... The prison sentence was imminent, but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter."
A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the "overwhelming" evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
Well, after the immigration bill failed to make the cut in the Senate, it is now difficult to find anyone who admits to liking the bill. I did not like it and I hope it is really down for the count this time.
This following commentator suggests that the public interest has, in fact been served.
My Source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2007/07/02/a_bill_too_bad_even_for_the_beltway
A Bill Too Bad Even For The Beltway
By Debra J. Saunders
Monday, July 2, 2007
| IN Advice to If you are going to tell people you want to grant citizenship to otherwise-law-abiding illegal immigrants, you need to be consistent. An amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to make illegal immigrants who ignored deportation orders or used fraudulent documents ineligible for legal status failed last month by a 51-46 vote. More advice: Wait until you've ramped up border enforcement and then take a stab at broadening citizenship. There are people who, like me, opposed this bill, but would agree to a narrow amnesty measure under the right circumstances. The fact is, many of today's naturalized citizens and legal residents at one point were illegal. Some overstayed their visas, then married. Others petitioned a judge for legal status so they could care for a legal resident. Congress has passed laws, now expired, which allowed qualified residents to apply for legal status if they paid a fine. Pundits have been quick to call the bill's failure bad for the GOP -- and it was a loss for President Bush. Still, Democrats looking to 2008 should be afraid. Their constituents don't want Big Amnesty and don't take kindly to granting citizenship to anyone who decides to break American law, as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., apparently wants to do. A recent Democracy Corps poll found that 47 percent of Democratic voters supported the bill, while 47 percent opposed it. With independents and Republicans opposed, the Democratic Party is also on the losing side of this issue. While many opponents saw those who voted for this bill as giant sell-outs, I have to disagree. Yes, Democrats are looking for new voters, and yes, Republicans want cheap labor, but they also are looking out for their constituents. They care about farmers and employers who might shutter their operations if they can't find willing workers. That's not good for their states' economies. I believe that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who voted yes on Kennedy-Kyl thought that a "yes" vote was in this country's best interest. They thought of employers who struggle to stay in business, and of those good people who only come here to work and be part of the American dream. Their fault -- no small one -- is that they failed to think of citizens who are outraged and baffled at But they also weren't honest with voters about what they wanted. From the start, Bush should have said that his main goal was not improved enforcement, but to expand citizenship to illegal immigrants. Then the debate could have been about how best to achieve that goal, and which immigrants should qualify. There's another rule in politics: If you don't believe you can sell a bill to the American people for what it really is, you deserve to lose. |
