Breaking News - Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

Remove all ads!

Clearly, Bush's pardon of Libby has much greater implications than Clinton's pardons. In the latter case, the only people who were affected/benefited were the pardoned people. In Libby's case, the potential is that Bush and Cheney also benefited immensely (considering that otherwise Libby might have turned on them. What about those comments during the trial that Cheney would be called to testify?). Not to speak of the effect of this pardon on all the people involved in the other scandals this administration is embroiled in.

So, Bush's pardon of Libby is self serving in great part. (which cannot really be said of Clinton's pardons. IIRC, people involved in the Whitewater thing spend some time in jail, even if they were pardoned eventually).

And, in reply to another question, no, I did not expect that Bush would pardon Libby (not before January 2009, at least). Le's say I gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding all those declamations about rule of law, dignity, etc. I guess I was wrong.

 

A lot of the "moral outrage" you are complaining about is well-suited for the law-and-order conservatives, many of whom often like to see stiff prison sentences handed to anyone who offends their self-rightous and "lofty system of values," which the rest of us are trumpted with on an almost dialy basis. The lack of moral outrage from the conservative right is what is the most "nauseating" in this instance.

 

Wasn't there a theory stating that in every online discussion, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler increases with every post? I'm starting to think it's the same with Clinton and political posts.

Now, strangely enough, I did not like Clinton too much. However, just because he ostensibly did something - which he was then lambasted for - does not mean it's okay for someone else to do it, and then complain that "He also did it" when caught. Me, I say that if Bush and co expect anyone to believe that they are big on justice, they need to look at the man in the mirror, not lambast their predecessors.

Doesn't that remind you of the "3 envelopes" joke?

 

Your logic baffles me sometimes, Snook - honestly. Are you honestly arguing that because an injustice occurs regularly, that it's no big deal? That it's unworthy of outrage? Let's say you were car jacked, for example. Say I told you "if you're outraged, upset, or surprised by this, you're just being naive. Car jacking is standard operating procedure these days." Would you accept that?

Indeed they do, which I would think includes you here. The moral outrage from the conservative right was at least this hot during Clinton's pardoning spree, if not hotter. It always seems worse when it's happening right now. Many of us who are so outraged by this also think that the pardon comes from a member of Bush's own cabinet should count for something as well, and sets it far above the realm of your average pardon.

Sidenote: your incessant liberal-bashing is really getting old. If you truly believe, as your posts seem to indicate, that the political left has the market cornered on corruption, hyperbole, hypocrisy and petty partisan bickering, the naivity here is clearly your own. I only say this because you strike me as bright enough to do better when making a point. Have the intellectual honesty to call your own side to the carpet once in a while.

 

No, you don't revise an existing adage/meme like Godwin's Law, you formulate a separate adage:

...is the closest I've been able find to "As an online discussion continues, the probability of Godwin's Law being cited approaches one." (See here)

 

@LKD:

Good to see that such arrogance and lack of accountability for this whole affair even reaches into the republican ranks!

 

I don't think LKD is a Republican, just a conservative. He's Canadian, eh.

 

Canadian? What are ya talking aboot? Well, OK, it's still nice to see someone who can look at the issue objectively, even if you didn't have much dislike for Mr. Bush previously.

 

Possible, although at least the "righty cons" were going after a President as oppossed to an underling. To me that is a big difference.

Clearly, this is the most intelligent post in this thread. My only modification is that the Democratic Party clearly benefited from the Clinton pardons in the form of cash donations which basically bought the pardons.

I'll help with the logic. What Bush and all of the previous Presidents did, while odious was still legal and allowable by the Constitution. Carjacking is not an injustice, it is a crime. Very big difference in my opinion. My logic (and my point) is that if it is such a big deal to the citizenry we should try to change/reduce the powers instead of moaning about it. I accept it for what it is.

You are absolutely correct. I was not very happy when Clinton was selling pardons, especially the "Rich Pardon". Someone will have to do a search and find out how many posts we had about that in 2002.

I feel the need to do what I can to keep these boards "fair and balanced". The only way I can do that is by responding and posting. If I call people out on American/Conservative bashing it is a violation of the Terms of Service of these boards. To put the shoe on the other foot, and I won't name names, how many of the liberal, anti-American, anti-Bush posters get "old" to you? Never forget, "Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one" You don't have to like or agree with my opinion, but you should respect my right to have it and express it.

 

Fair enough - and the carjacking analogy wasn't the best, I admit. But what I think you're missing is that what you see as moaning is actually people voicing their desire for such change. A suggestion I've heard recently is to draft an ammendment preventing Presidents from pardoning members of their own cabinets, thereby forcing a President to be held accountable for the misdeeds of his lackeys. I think it's (in principle) a good thing for Presidents to have the power to pardon. The problem is, their judgement is almost always politically motivated and the wrong people are almost always pardoned for the wrong reasons. See: Marc Rich.

My actual point - which I believe you missed - was that just because previous Presidents have done it, have shown poor judgement in doing it and are well within their legal power to do it, does not mean it's right, and doesn't make it OK to do it now. And that I saw it coming and still couldn't prevent it does not mean I should just sit back and accept it. Outrage is not invalidated by one's inablity to change the outcome. It's not a sign of naivite', but of a sense of right and wrong. And a pulse.

Couple of things: first, if by "fair and balanced" you refer to the Fox News style of portaying liberals in a laughably cartoonish negative stereotype, then I politely request you resist the urge. If by "fair and balanced" you mean to balance the majority left-leaning viewpoint around here with a conservative one, then that's fantastic.

I WANT you to continue posting. I think any point of view is valid, especially American conservative points of view. The problem I have is that many of your arguements either boil down to or include some blanket statement pointing the finger squarely at the "liberal left," when in most cases either conservatives have done it too and/or liberalism itself has little or nothing to do with what we're discussing. (This, I believe, was the point of aMaster's "good faith" comment above.)

You're right - I don't have to agree with your opinion, and of course you have a right to it. But what I'm saying is I think there are far more effective ways for a conservative to express his opinion (and in turn, convince others of the validity of said opinion) without resorting to blanket ad hominems against "them librulz," who are often portrayed by some conservatives to such a cartoonish stereotype that it makes any serious discussion difficult to tolerate for long. This is the tactic of the Hannitys and Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Malkins of the world (and is the main reason why I stopped calling myself a Republican). No matter the problem, liberals are to blame, rinse repeat. But it's never that simple or one-sided.

And again - I think you're better than that.

EDIT - followup

That's not to say that (and this goes for everyone) just because I respect your opinion and your right to it, doesn't mean that if that opinion is based on a poor grasp of the facts or an intellectually dishonest appraisal of the issue, that I won't pounce on it. Like a ninja.

[ July 06, 2007, 17:04: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Yet, Libby was Rich's lawyer. So, if there was some sort of agreement between the Democratic party and Rich's defense team to craft a pardon, based on donations - as you charge - then Libby may have been a part of that scheme as well. So, let's be "fair and balanced," and I'm all for having "intelligent" posts based on "evidence" rather than opinion, hearsay or "my right to say whatever I please."

But bear in mind that Bush was the Law and Order governor of Texas and he showed little compassion for those occupants in TDC. Now he just happens to have a "good buddy" who by rights never even finished the process in the criminal justice system - and he already has a communted sentence? And he claims that he "respects the jury?" Yeah, let's be "fair and balanced." Better yet, let's be rational, rather than emotional.

The Constitution was never intended to allow criminals to pardon one another. It's an insult to the men who crafted the document that you believe that it's a perfectly legal function of the Constitution for such instances. That is considered an abuse of power. And by the same document, can be considered a "high crime," by which Congress is chraged to hold the president accountable with impeachement.

 

by your own logic chandos, bill clinton should be in jail for high crimes

 

It was not "my logic" - and, btw, if you are not familiar with American politics, Bill Clinton WAS impeached. He was found not guilty.

 

I see your point, but there has to be some way to prevent the President's inner circle from skirting accountability when they break laws they've sworn to uphold. If that means scaling back the President's executive privilege, I'm fine with that. If it's a power that's so tempting to abuse then it stands to reason that it should be checked. Maybe requiring a super-majority of congress to uphold a pardon. That would ensure that deserving pardons are granted (like the death sentances of the mentally retarded) and the undeserving are denied (like the 30-month sentences of the ethically retarded).

 

I find this slightly bizarre, the thought that a branch/group of people is more likely to be corrupt than a single individual.