Bush Saves Irving, Kills Karla by Stephen Hanchett

http://isbushantichrist.blogspot.com/
I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own." - George W. Bush explaining why he signed the death warrants for a record-breaking 152 inmates in Texas.

Bush is a man famous for his lack of compassion in issuing pardons, or anything close to it. Bush has NEVER before used his power to save someone from doing hard time in prison. He always liked to pretend that he was a tough, ‘law and order’ politician, and that when it came to showing mercy towards people convicted of crimes, that it was the criminal who should have thought twice before breaking the law. At least, that’s what he used to say.

US Department of Justice - Section 1-2.113 - Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions

A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.
On every single point, Bush brushed aside the law and the Justice Department’s own guidelines for issuing commutations. Bush has gone out of his way to put himself above the law, and that even applies to the issuing commutations. He needs to prove to everyone – but especially himself – that he is completely above the law.

Previously, Bush’s style was to look for a few people convicted of jaywalking or selling moonshine about 50 years ago, and almost as a way of mocking the concept of mercy, grant them a trivial pardon. But lately, the ‘law and order’ mask that he used to wear has been shredded in Congressional commitees - along with thousands of Carl Rove’s incriminating Emails, and all those cases of selective amnesia that keep sleepwalking up to Capital Hill. We are finally witnessing the Bush Crime Family in its utter and complete moral depravity.

In all his years as president, Bush has only commuted only 2 - that’s right TWO - sentences, and those were for people about to be released from prison anyway. Bush has NEVER before saved anyone from doing any time in prison. He has never before declared anyone’s prison sentence to be “excessive” or “harsh.” Irving Lewis Libby is the only one in America with that honor.

Martha Stewart, you'll remember, was convicted on four counts of lying and obstruction (about a measly stock sale) – and yet she went to prison and served her term, just like thousands of others do for similar crimes every day. Irving Lewis Libby was convicted on four counts of lying and obstruction and perjury, (concerning the far more heinous crime of exposing an undercover agent). Yet Bush and the far right screams: “It’s not fair, I tells ya! Not Fair!!”

If it was fair for Martha, than why wasn’t it fair for Irving? If Bush had no problem watching a woman go to prison, than why not a man? Is it because Martha was a Democrat? Or is it because she probably has more balls than anyone in Bush’s draft-dodging and piss-cowardly administration? There are individuals like Weldon Angelos who will probably rot and die in prison for selling a government informant $350 in marijuana (he got 55 years) – and yet Irving can’t do 30 months for repeatedly lying under oath to federal investigators and obstructing justice? Even Nixon refused to pardon top aids Haldeman and Ehrlichman over the same sort of offences; even he had enough respect for the rule of law that he wouldn't go that far.

Think of what this means for all the countless thousands of people who have gone to prison for things like smoking a joint, or stealing a bike or a pizza. Bush has just declared to America that there has never before been such a serious miscarriage of justice, or someone more deserving of being spared the horrors of a brief country-club prison stretch, than Irving Lewis Libby. All of their sentences were just right – only Libby’s was inexcusable.

In this administration’s estimation, the laws were only written for the underclass – for that guy who got 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza, for example. But our laws were never intended to disrupt the delicate routine of those who are wealthy, and have political influence. At least, that’s Bush’s clearly-stated view on the matter. (I can just see him calling in all those world-famous historians and scholars just to ask: "Do you think our unpopularity abroad is a result of my personality?" Clue to the clueless: Yea George – it’s because of you and your sick, sociopathic personality.)

To understand Bush’s sociopathic reasoning and his newly-discovered well of compassion, you must understand the concept of 'honor among thieves.' What may be a clear violation of the law to most people, may seem very unfair from the perspective of those who have absolutely no respect for the law, and whose idea of fairness is grounded in whatever serves their common, and criminal, interests. Though perjury, obstruction of justice, outing an undercover CIA agent, and damaging our national security during wartime, may all seem like extremely serious felonies to us – to Bush and the far right it's just downright unfair to hold Libby accountable for anything, because Libby had already skated on the more serious crimes of treason and outing a CIA agent by lying to prosecutors and covering up the truth. He did his job and he was a good soldier. This wasn’t so much a commutation of sentence as a payoff for beating the tougher rap and keeping his lying mouth shut.

To criminals like Bush & Cheney, it seems unfair to hold a person on lesser charges, when they’ve already skated on the more serious ones. If they’ve already outwitted justice and basically beat the system, then you must give a thief their props. It’s petty to hold them up on lesser charges, or at least, that's the view of most sociopaths.

Criminals like Bush, Cheney, and Libby, look at the law as a kind of fixed game; if they’ve outwitted the law and cheated justice, it’s only fair that everyone skates. The law to them is like a game you play to win or lose – there are no in-betweens, just like there are no ties in baseball. Irving’s pardon was the final, tie-breaker inning in a game that was fixed from the start. Bush appointed both the judge and the prosecutor in the case, but since the result was not exactly what he wanted, that part needed to be fixed also.

While treason seems like a pretty serious felony when viewed from the perspective of folk willing to fight for their country (the suckers) - to Bush, Cheney, the far right fascist class, and to the entire organized crime underworld generally, it’s really only a felony if they can catch you red-handed at it. There is no such thing as the rule of law – there is only the rule of the most ruthless, clever, and well-connected among us. It only makes sense that Bush would show no compassion for other (much poorer) criminals – no matter how worthy their case or unjust the law, because they lost the game from the beginning (they were probably born into the wrong family). They are only getting what they deserve by being poor, and not having the right family connections, like Irving.

It’s just like the Soprano family, when Tony Soprano’s cousin Tony Blundetto went to prison for a crime that Tony Soprano bungled and never showed up for. It simply wasn’t fair, and things were never quite the same between them. Tony Soprano certainly would have commuted his cousin’s sentence if he could – so why shouldn’t Bush, since he can? Libby was a stand-up guy – he didn’t squeal – it was only right that Bush should reward him for his silence (and cover his own butt). Didn’t Tony Soprano set up Tony Blundetto after he got out, and do everything that he possibly could to make things right (until he had to murder him)? So why shouldn't Irving Libby get the same treatment? That’s what ‘honor among thieves’ is all about. It means that Bush can genuinely feel that Irving’s sentence was unfair, and that he did the right thing by pardoning him – even though both of them broke the law, and should probably be put away for a long, long, time – and even though they will both go down in history as the sociopathic scum and traitors to their country that they are.

Finally, let’s never forget Karla Faye Tucker. No, she wasn’t a traitor to her country, and she never damaged our national security by outing an undercover CIA agent in wartime. She was never responsible for breaking the law to defend an illegal invasion that ultimately cost over 600,000 innocent lives. But she committed a heinous crime nevertheless, and was ultimately convicted of murder.

While in jail, she became a devout Christian, and for years Karla ministered to other inmates and led them to the Lord. She had already signed an agreement waiving any possibility of parole for the rest of her life in the event that her sentence was commuted to life in prison. Her record and work while in Prison had been exemplary. Even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell knew about her work, and they were convinced that she was genuinely remorseful and rehabilitated.

Unlike Irving Lewis Libby, Karla Faye Tucker wasn’t asking to be kept out of the prison system – she only wanted to spend the rest of her life witnessing and ministering to others in prison. And unlike Irving, who has absolutely no remorse for his crimes, she very much did. But in the end it was Irving Lewis Libby who had his sentence commuted (eliminated), while Karla Faye Tucker was cruelly mocked and ridiculed before being put to death.

In an interview, Bush volunteered that he had watched Karla's nationally televised prison interview on Larry King. He said that King had asked Karla what she would like to say to Governor Bush. Carlson asked Bush what she said. "`Please,' Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me.'"

Bush thought it was absolutely hilarious that Karla would ask for her life – after all, she never had the money or connections necessary to game the system. She was getting what she deserved for being poor, and apparently for Bush, what made her all the more amusingly pathetic is that she didn’t even seem to realize it.
But Irving Lewis Libby's case was much different. He deserved, in Cheney words “a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man.” What we, a federal prosecutor, 12 jurors and a judge, all know about Irving Lewis Libby is that he’s a compulsive perjurer with no respect for the law, that he’s a traitor who conspired to exposed an undercover CIA agent in wartime, and that he has absolutley no remourse for any of his crimes. But we also know that he comes from a very wealthy family, and that he has the very highest political connections - so that must have been what Cheney was referring to.

When asked in her final days why she remained optimistic about having her sentence commuted, Karla relied, "Because my hope is in the Lord. He can change hearts." How foolish that seems in retrospect - after all, this was George W Bush's heart we're talking about. Maybe she should have been more like Irving and put all her faith in Dick Cheney – because he knows how to handle Bush. And the Lord undoubtedly gave up trying to influence either one of them a long time ago.

posted by R. Stephen Hanchett at 11:43 PM
http://isbushantichrist.blogspot.com/

Bush should be executed for his crimes. I mean that will all my heart.

:kick: