Ms Underestimated,

Why don't you ever engage anyone in debate?

You seem to have strong opinions. Do you not have the confidence to defend them?

Your behavior is sort of cut-and-run-like, don't you think? Your logo cuts a more intimidating figure than you do on your blog.

The questions above seem pretty straightforward. Surely you can answer them as a defender of Libby.

Ms Underestimated, you're back! I trust your medical condition has improved. It looks like you can type now, which is great.

Are you ready to rumble?

The President acknowledged Libby's crimes in the announcement that he bravely e-mailed to everyone. He simply thought the penalty was too harsh. [Gee, wasn't there a huge brouhaha about excessive penalties in the right-wing blogosphere recently?] So instead of reducing Libby's sentence from, say, 30 months to 30 days, he reduced it to 0 (Zero!) days and a fine that'll probably be paid by his friends. He basically shortcircuited the Judicial process, like some sort of activist something-or-another.

I wonder if people in courtrooms around the country will start to play the "excessive punishment" card now? Way to go Mr. President! He established a two-tier Justice system. That's very American.

If you could answer even a couple of the questions below, I'd appreciate it.

If the case against Libby was a fraud:

1. Why did the CIA ever ask Justice to open an investigation?
2. Why did Justice agree to do so?
3. Why did John Ashcroft recuse himself?
4. Why did Bush say he'd fire anyone who leaked the info (which of course he didn't do. Flip flop?)
5. For that matter, why did Bush allow millions of tax dollars to be wasted on an investigation of a "non-crime" that he could have declared a non-crime from the get-go?

So Libby was convicted of obstructing justice during the investigation of a "non-crime" and everyone - jury, Republican appointed judge, a further panel of judges - who worked on his case in the justice system was wrong?