If you don't already LOATHE Fred Thompson, then read this.

[pnwmom]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/31/thompson/

"The only thing that makes Thompson a "tough guy" is that he pretends to be one; he play-acts as one. There is nothing real about it. But in the same way that George Bush's ranch and fighter pilot costumes (along with his war advocacy) sent media stars swooning over his masculinity and "toughness," the Howard Finemans and Mark Halperins, along with the Bush followers in need of a new authoritarian Leader, are so intensely hungry for this faux masculine power that the illusion, the absurd play-acting, is infinitely more valuable to them than any reality, than any genuine attributes of "toughness."

SNIP

"Thus, parading around in military costumes or excitedly talking about sending people to war is infinitely more important for showing "toughness" than actually doing anything that evinces toughness. Warning in a Southern drawl that God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman is infinitely more important for demonstrating one's "cultural conservatism" than the question of whether one's behavior is actually "culturally conservative."

"There is nothing in Fred Thompson's life that he has actually done that makes him "a tough guy" in the sense Fineman means it, nor is there anything that makes him a "cultural conservative." If anything, what his life actually is -- his behavior in reality -- seems to negate those characterizations.

"But the illusion of manliness cliches, tough guy poses, and empty gestures of "cultural conservatism" are what the Republican base seeks, and media simpletons like Fineman, Halperin and Matthews eat it all up just as hungrily. That's how twice-and-thrice-divorced and draft-avoiding individuals like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh become media symbols of the Christian "values voters" and "tough guy," "tough-on-defense" stalwarts."

SNIP

If he managed to steal the election, he could be even a worse President than Bush, because he is by far the better actor.

[Maat]

1. That was good stuff!

Thanks for the post!

[Cameron27]

2. Matthews is positively drooling over Fred.

He's so giddy, I have to change channels. What the heck is so lacking in these men that they crave the likes of Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan.

[pnwmom]

6. It's just like the way he drooled over Bush in his flight suit.

Disgusting.

[Berry Cool]

9. Tweety may be a bit disillusioned over Rudy and need a new hero.

You know how it is. When he learns his gods have feet of clay, he gets ever so disappointed. Then he has to go in search of someone new to idolize blindly.

[Ikonoklast]

58. Daddy issues. n/t

[orleans]

60. man crushes n/t

[southerncrone]

3. Nailed it!

[pansypoo53219]

4. so, he is the neo

ronny raygun they have been waiting for. no wonder the hosannas.

[DeSwiss]

5. Oh yeah, he's real manly....

From a Tennessean article:

"Thompson's former coach Garner Ezell, who attended First Street Church of Christ with Thompson's family, remembered a football game in which the youngster was injured and lay at midfield. When the coaches got to him, he said, 'How's the crowd taking it?' the coach said. He was smart, but he was lazy. He probably could have been a straight-A student if he'd applied himself."

He was playing to the crowds even in high school...


"The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do tomorrow."

[pnwmom]

7. He could be extremely dangerous.

Just as much of a cold-blooded narcissist as our current decider guy, but smarter, and a much better actor.

Ugh. Lately, I get a chill just looking at him.

[Clark2008]

17. He could be dangerous on more than that level.

I think he'll beat the pants off any of our candidates BECAUSE of the vapidity of our electorate and their belief in the surreal, as described in the article you posted. Thompson will get the white male, swing voters in the South and mid-West (or Bubba voters, as I call them) - the very group we so desperately need in order to flip any purple states.

The only way we're going to beat Thompson is if we nominate someone who can curb the support of the Bubba voters in his favor. I'm sorry, a woman, a black man and a metrosexual isn't going to do that. These white males - as evidenced by insane O'Reilly's latest white male tirade - feel too threatened to vote for our front-runners. We have to face that reality.

Thompson is their ticket to remaining necessary and the corporate media will make sure it slyly insinuates this (it started, as I mentioned, the other night with BillO's "white male power structure" crapola).

I wish this Salon article would make into the mainstream, but, sadly, it won't. The corporate media has now picked their pawn, and that would be Fred Dalton Thompson, as I knew it would be the minute I heard he was considering a run. Mittens, McWar and Ghouliani might as well hang it up.

Sorry to be such a downer and I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. :(

P.S. I also want to thank you. Thank you for posting a thread of substance regarding Thompson. I'm about tired of hearing of his "child bride." For one thing, she's over 40 and hardly a child. For another, it's not the issue people here are trying to make it out to be. I actually think a pretty blonde wife will HELP him in a general election, particularly with these same Bubba voters I mentioned.

In any case, these are REAL reasons to loathe Fred Thompson and I'm glad for the discussion.

[pnwmom]

26. If it's any comfort,

there are women in the purple states, too, and they might be as turned off by Thompson as I am.

And the Democratic candidate doesn't have to win any more states than either Gore or Kerry -- he just has to get credited with all the states he actually won. We did win Florida in 2000, and we did win Ohio in 2004, based on votes cast. We have a much better chance now in Florida, since the governor there has moved to restore a felon's right to vote. And we have a much better chance now in Ohio, since Blackwell has been tossed out. And now that the scandal about caging lists is coming out, we have a chance to stop this kind of election fraud -- if we're smart and effective.

[Clark2008]

33. I completely agree with everything you said.

I, too, am one of those women in a puplish/red state.

However, I also know that white males still vote in higher numbers than women and/or minorities (which is sad).

And, I don't trust much is being done about our voting rights. It seems as though, every election, this gets some press and then nothing's ever done about it. We can only hope that it will be dealt with this year.

[pnwmom]

38. Did you hear that John Conyers has asked Palast for those caging lists?

Conyers said he wants to investigate this. I'm starting to feel hopeful.

[Clark2008]

43. Yeah - but Conyers seems to be the only one committed.

He can't do it alone.

But, bless him for trying, anyway.

[LBJDemocrat]

37. The Creature from the Black Lagoon should be taken seriously

I agree with you that the current three candidates might not be appealing to Bubba voters, particularly HRC and Obama. Gore hasn't proven to be much more effective.

Clark needs to run.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. Dead on.

What's really dangerous is that this guy's a REALLY good actor, albeit limited in his range. His gruff, ubermasculine schtick and solidity are flawless, though, as seen in some of his lesser-seen pictures like "Fat Man and Little Boy".

His riff is that of the no-nonsense, plain-talking tower of strength. Despite the fact that he doesn't really back that up with serious effort, it plays and it plays well. He's also a holdover from the Nixon years with full-frontal Watergate credentials, so the trogs'll love him.

Something we need to learn from the reactionaries is that simplistic image is everything. Hell, it's probably better to cashier a battalion or so of pollsters and hire a good casting director. If Kennedy didn't prove the point, then Reagan and Clinton surely should have.

Watching the first Republican "debate" was heartening in a way (because of the pathetic personas of the idiots vying for the prize), but it was also demoralizing. Is this the best they could do? Romney's sort of pretty, but he just reeks of appeasing greasiness. McCain is sanctimonious and unstable. Rudy's just an empty shirt who's still living off of accidentally being on the site of a disaster. Ron Paul seemed like someone running from the white-coated men with the butterfly nets. Brownback was somewhere in grade-school fantasyland dreaming of the Sandman and the Tooth Fairy. Tommy wasn't an idiot, but that's about the best I can say about him.

After that embarrassment, I felt very comfy about our chances. Someone like Fred Dalton Thompson, however, is dangerous. Far too many people will buy into his big, stolid bluntness and the guy's got presence. He's got star quality, even if he has spent his career as a supporting player.

This gruff, shambling, bearlike big bohunk backwoods plainspoken crap plays to the groundlings to no end, and he's really good at it.

This is not a good development.

[Lord Helmet]

8. Thompson is a poser.

The Republicans are really desperate.

[A wise Man]

10. What is it about Republicans and actors?

They seem to like actors that play act as a president while reading scripts based on lies and fantasies. Then they hail them up as some great leader of society. Reagan was the biggest lying actor so far, Bush is the biggest liar in reality so far, now they want another actor to lie and beat these other two jack asses. Maybe we should watch "BONZO" and elect the monkey, at least he wouldn't lie. Totally amazing.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. Republicans know that the ability to lie convincingly on TV is the essential Presidential trait

Actors know how to do this very well. Psychopaths can also do this very well. Reagan was an actor, Bush is a psychopath.

Reagan followed the script he was given. He robbed from the poor, gave to the rich. Sure there was that little Iran Contra thing but that was small potatoes. Bush has overreached himself and endangered their schemes to redirect money from taxpayers pockets to corporate treasuries.

They'd much rather deal with actors. They know how to play a role without taking it too seriously.

[A wise Man]

12. A big hand for the little lady

You're killing me with logic and observation. If a rethug read this he or she would go, "DUH-H-H" what you mean??

[bklyncowgirl]

13. Why thank you, sir. It's really pretty obvious. nt

[pnwmom]

27. I think you've nailed it. n/t

[kikiek]

15. It is all about the superficial. Don't look too deep or know too much. It destroys the illisuion.

[Grandrose]

19. Well, when you live in a fantasy world?

Herbert quotes one of the most chilling passages from the Suskind article where he talks with a WHITE HOUSE aide...

...According to Mr. Suskind, "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' " The aide told Mr. Suskind, "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Got that? We may think there are real-world consequences to the policies of the president, real pain and real grief for real people. But to the White House, that kind of thinking is passé. The White House doesn't even recognize that kind of reality.

:yoiks:

[pnwmom]

28. I remember that awful quote.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Sparkly]

14. Recommended!

"...intensely hungry for this faux masculine power" -- the description of this phenomenon alone is rec-worthy!!

swooning over his masculinity and "toughness,"
parading around in military costumes
tough guy poses
illusion
media symbols

Exactly!!

[Vinca]

16. Fred was a lobbyist. Just what we need in the White House.

If there's anything left on January 20, 2009, it would be sold or farmed out to the big corporations by January 21.

[predfan]

18. if he gets the nomination, don't bet against him

that's just the way today's electorate is. What we need so badly is a thinking, working executive, and idea man or woman, not someone whe's said to "make George w. Bush look like a workaholic" This is no time for another lazy handsoff president.

[pnwmom]

31. As I said, he's very dangerous. There is a segment of the population

that is always looking for an authoritarian leader and he could fit the bill.

[indepat]

20. I've long loathed, no despised, Thompson

[fencesitter]

21. The Dems should nominate Martin Sheen..

Then we all sit back and watch the movie.

[hedgehog]

22. I've been flabbergasted at how like Walter Mitty the Republicans are

ever since Ollie North's emails were released back during the Iran hearings. I can't quite put it into words, but they are so busy acting out some kind of spy thriller in which they are the heroes that they don't seem to notice that they are in fact in charge of running the country! For example, it's not enough for Bush to be President; he has to be the president/fighter pilot form Independence Day and Air Force 1. I think the prime example of confusing fiction with reality occurred when John Wayne was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[MistressOverdone]

23. This has me thinking just why

we as a culture are so enthralled with macho men. Must be some strange evolutionary quirk or something.

But to me, Thompson is a bit long in the tooth for macho.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I read this yesterday. Every once in a while, I get Fineman and Jonathan Alter

confused, since they both write about politics for Newsweek. And then Howie pops off, usually on Tweety's show, and I remember the difference between the journalist and the hack. Remember, though, that Tweety is creaming his jeans for Fred not just of his own freewill, but because Fred is/was an employee of NBC (and I think he was a lobbyist for GE too). I'm sure the word has come down from the brass to promote Fred in every way possible, even if he's off L&O--drive up the viewership and advertising for the show by mentioning the "Law and Order Candidate" at every opportunity. It's like product placement in movies, or on NASCAR race cars. Fred has a giant NBC logo on him.

[pnwmom]

29. Good point. NBC likes the free publicity for L & O. Great. n/t

[progressoid]

25. Sounds like GOP nominee material to me.

[Honeycombe8]

30. OTOH, part of being a leader is APPEARING as one...

acting like one, and having some gravitas. That is a valid part of leadership, IMO. It shouldn't ONLY be appearance and actions, but you have to appear like a leader first, for others to recognize you as one.

It's up to the Dems to point out that he lacks substance behind the facade. But it's a false argument to state that he is only acting, 'cause acting like a leader is EXPECTED of leaders. Even when they're scared or indecisive, they need to act like they're not.

[pnwmom]

32. True -- and he's very good at that.

So was Hitler.

[Honeycombe8]

47. Hitler didn't just ACT like a leader. He was one, wasn't he? A bad one....

but still, a leader. He was able to get millions of people to do his bidding and get behind a fanatical scheme.

Thompson, of course, is not evil like Hitler was. Seems like a nice enough man. Just ultra conservative. I heard something about his past the other day that was negative, but shoot, I can't remember what it was. It surprised me, though, and I thought it might hurt his chances. I'm sure I'll hear it again, though!

[WCGreen]

34. The dem's should release a commercial of pundits fawning over

Bush and just say this is the guy they loved the last time...

Are you going to let them decide for you this time?

Fool me once, shame on you...

Fool me twice, shame on me...

[depakid]

35. "media simpletons like Fineman, Halperin and Matthews eat it all up"

They do indeed, because they are just as shallow and dishonest as he is.

Whoever the Dem candidates are this time around, I hope they realize that by in large corporate media is their enemy- our enemy and treats them as such.

There is nothing to be gained by coddling them- and, as past history tells us, everything to lose by failing to look "strong" and "decisive" when the inevitable framing, deception and ambushing occurs.

Indeed, a defining moment of the campaign(s) may be when one musters the courage to hand one and/or many of these self-important far right enablers their asses on a platter.

The majority of the electorate would love to see that at this point.

[pnwmom]

39. I agree. We have to have a candidate that will stand up to their attacks. n/t

[Alhena]

36. Better Thompson than Rudy, IMO ...

Rudy is almost salivating to bomb Iran- he pretty much guarantees he'll do it. Thompson has a standard response about how it might be an idea if our military weren't already committed, but we are. So I get the idea that Thompson is less likely to start a new war than Rudy.

Plus, with Thompson I like the idea of running against a candidate with cancer. Hillary or Obama will seem young and healthy in comparison.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Read the below post/link before you assume Thompson won't mess with Iran.

[TwilightGardener]

40. FWIW, not all conservatives are on board, and ol' Fred has said some pretty stupid things--

A conservative columnist I'm not familiar with has called Fred out on his writings, like calling Valley Forge (you know, George Washington's winter camp?) a "battle" like the Alamo, and saying that before we "liberated" Iraq, women there suffered under Islamic rule. Well, there was no Islamic rule in Iraq pre-invasion--according to the author, that came AFTER we got rid of Saddam. He also goes into Fred's AEI membership, and says that Fred will want to "liberate" Iran and Syria. Effin' scary guy, that Fredster. He has now taken Mitten's place as my most loathed Repub candidate.

edit AGAIN to fix link: http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1180588665190220.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

[OHdem10]

42. Lobbyist Lobbyist Lobbyist --All those Red State Men

who call in talk shows, and are fuming about Lobbyists
should love Fred. (sarcasm)

[Clark2008]

44. They'll turn a blind eye to Ole Fred, though.

Remember, being a Republican means you don't have to think. You must only parrot talking points.

[Disturbed]

45. The Bush Administration’s Dilemma

The Bush Administration’s Dilemma Regarding a Possible Libby Pardon
And How Outsiders Such as Fred Thompson Appear to Be Working on a Solution
by John Dean

“Thompson, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, gave an audience his assessment of the prosecution against Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in a speech on May 12, 2007. He claims that the investigation was a sham from the outset: that there should have been no Special Counsel selected, and there never was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Indeed, he claimed “that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a ‘covered person’ under the
statute and it was obvious from the outset.”

This is a remarkable charge - suggesting that the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department knowing that Plame was not covered by the law; that the Justice Department commenced the investigation even though it had the same knowledge; and that the Special Counsel continued the investigation even though he, too, knew she was not covered. Yet why would Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department have undertaken a baseless investigation? Why would a busy and highly-respected U.S. Attorney from Chicago take the assignment of Special Counsel if the law did not apply? And why would that same highly-respected U.S. Attorney make representations to a federal judge that the law did cover Valerie Plame, if it did not? It seems Fred Thompson has made a remarkably irresponsible charge.
“Furthermore,” Thompson claimed, “Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plame’s name and it wasn’t Scooter Libby.” Yet, Thompson added, “the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel … spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything,” and finally “came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby.” Inconsistent recollections? Apparently Thompson does not have a clue about the evidence that was presented at the trial, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby concocted a complex lie to explain away key behavior.

Nonetheless, based on his two-plus years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thompson informed the audience, “In no other prosecutor’s office in the country would a case like this one have been brought.” Apparently, other prosecutors tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition, later in his speech, Thompson explained, “I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.”
That twisted report of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and disturbing view on what to do about it is a bit frightening - especially coming from a man who wants to be president. But it is arguments like this that are the basis of the drive for leniency from Judge Walton, for a pardon, and, more broadly, for a change in public opinion regarding this case.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1601/

[geek tragedy]

46. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-PNAC). eom

[FogerRox]

48. Isnt Thompsons wife younger than his daughter? LOL.

Fred is a farce. Can Fred beat Gore? I don't think so... Can Fred beat any DEM, I dont know....

[Honeycombe8]

49. Where are the facts?

If the Dems are going to beat Thompson, they better have more than a trash article. Facts, please?

Hey, I wouldn't vote for Thompson even if they waterboarded me. But when reading about the candidates, I like to see some facts in an article, and not just broad statements like "There's nothing tough about Thompson except his pose." That's not a fact. That's just a negative opinion article. And that won't win an election.

[TwilightGardener]

50. The article really wasn't intended to be a biography of Thompson--

it was intended to show that pundits like Tweety and Fineman, and the media in general, create certain themes of "toughness" and "macho" and "strong on defense" about Republicans like Thompson, and that ends up becoming the accepted version of who that person is, despite NO facts to back that up. Why is Thompson "strong" on defense, according to Howard Fineman? There's no evidence to support that statement, but it's stated as fact. Why is Thompson "tough"? Who knows? The guy sure as hell never served in the military, and was mostly a lobbyist and lawyer--if there are any big stories of personal or professional courage in his life, they haven't come out yet. But that assertion was made on Hardball, and went unchallenged. Glenn Greenwald's point is that these characterizations are asserted often enough by the RW-worshipping media that they become fact in the public's mind--they become the narrative--without ever being examined and weighed against fact. Like GWB is a tough-talkin', brush-clearin' Texas cowboy--how long did THAT fallacy persist as his image? Or Rudy's 9/11 hero status--reinforced without serious examination.

[Honeycombe8]

51. I see your point. But about Bush....well, he IS a tough-talkin', brush-clearin'...

Texan. Not a cowboy, though. Unfortunately, turned out that's ALL he is.

The tough image is based at least in part on his votes in the Senate, is what I've heard from the pundits. He was a reliable Repub Senator, voting yes on defense bills and other Repub issues.

There's no doubt that Thompson is a big, tall man with a deep authoritative voice. It's probably a biological thing that people are drawn to such qualities in a leader, esp. during war time. It's valid to count these qualities as a plus in a President. Most of our Presidents have been big, tall men.

This is one of the things lacking, as I see it, in the Dem. candidates. There isn't one among them with these qualities, and that's a disadvantage. It can be overcome. But it just makes it a tad more difficult.

Lobbyist...that's what I heard last week about Thompson that is a big negative...but I couldn't remember what I'd heard. That was it! He was a lobbyist for a long time, and then went back to being one after he left the Senate, I think. That's a huge negative, IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

54. Barack Obama isn't a tall, authoritative man with a deep voice?

Of course he is! Is he a lawyer? Yep. Has he voted for defense bills and other pro-military issues in the past? Yep. So is he tough? Macho? Strong on defense? I would say yes, but no one in the media will describe him that way, or ANY Dem that way, unless maybe it's Jim Webb (because he USED to be a Repub and is a vet) or Murtha--Maureen Dowd even called Obama "Obambi", IIRC--reinforcing the fact that Dems are soft and weak, even when there's no truth to it. It's really damaging to Democrats to be sold short this way, and to have their Republican opponents glorified for having the exact same characteristics. I wish there was a way to turn it around--that's how we kept getting Chimpy instead of Gore or Kerry. It's all in the marketing. I agree, though, 18 or 20 years of wheedling special favors for clients from Congress is not an honorable living--not for THAT long, anyway.

[Honeycombe8]

56. No. I like Obama a lot. But he's a slender, refined man with an...

eloquence in his speech. A great voice...not a deep authoritative voice (think LBJ). But Reagan had the same quality that Obama has. The gift of speech, and charm oozing out from his pores. Immensely likeable.

I'd agree that Obama comes closest to the authoritative leader mold. I don't even know if he's tall. I know he's not short. Is he tall?

I like Obama a lot. Wish he were leading in the polls. Or, if Gore runs, that Gore would select him as his VP.

[Honeycombe8]

57. Gore is a big, tall man with an authoritative voice. With a military background.

Okay, he was a journalist in the military. Still, he has some experience with the military.

His voice is deep. He's tall. I don't think his gaining weight hurts his chances at all...maybe just the opposite.

But he's not running.

[LBJDemocrat]

53. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is a blank slate

There aren't many facts to be found, as far as I know.

But I do agree that the article doesn't back up its points very well.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

52. Personality politics again...what a shame...

Too bad his personality is downright loathsome

[Disturbed]

59. Here are some facts about Fred.

The Bush Administration’s Dilemma Regarding a Possible Libby Pardon
And How Outsiders Such as Fred Thompson Appear to Be Working on a Solution
by John Dean

“Thompson, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, gave an audience his assessment of the prosecution against Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in a speech on May 12, 2007. He claims that the investigation was a sham from the outset: that there should have been no Special Counsel selected, and there never was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Indeed, he claimed “that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a ‘covered person’ under the
statute and it was obvious from the outset.”

This is a remarkable charge - suggesting that the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department knowing that Plame was not covered by the law; that the Justice Department commenced the investigation even though it had the same knowledge; and that the Special Counsel continued the investigation even though he, too, knew she was not covered. Yet why would Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department have undertaken a baseless investigation? Why would a busy and highly-respected U.S. Attorney from Chicago take the assignment of Special Counsel if the law did not apply? And why would that same highly-respected U.S. Attorney make representations to a federal judge that the law did cover Valerie Plame, if it did not? It seems Fred Thompson has made a remarkably irresponsible charge.
“Furthermore,” Thompson claimed, “Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plame’s name and it wasn’t Scooter Libby.” Yet, Thompson added, “the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel … spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything,” and finally “came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby.” Inconsistent recollections? Apparently Thompson does not have a clue about the evidence that was presented at the trial, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby concocted a complex lie to explain away key behavior.

Nonetheless, based on his two-plus years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thompson informed the audience, “In no other prosecutor’s office in the country would a case like this one have been brought.” Apparently, other prosecutors tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition, later in his speech, Thompson explained, “I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.”
That twisted report of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and disturbing view on what to do about it is a bit frightening - especially coming from a man who wants to be president. But it is arguments like this that are the basis of the drive for leniency from Judge Walton, for a pardon, and, more broadly, for a change in public opinion regarding this case.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1601 /