I love what Tony Snow said today:
I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.
"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"
In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.
I don't have a strong opinion about this one way or the other. It seems like Bush is completely within the law to do this...but I'm sure you can argue that....and I don't care.
Clinton did the same things, but at much larger and blatant levels. So the point is, if there is ANYONE who SHOULDN'T be opening their mouth on this one....it is Bill and Hillary Clinton.
I believe this is a continuation of Clinton's total separation from reality. He always believed he could do anything, say anything, and get away with anything he wanted...and for over 20 years he did...
Okay, I'm off on a tangent...the point of this post...If you pardon 140 people on your last day of office, and some of them are the biggest tax evaders ever, and others are known terrorist....and you don't go through the proper procedures to do that....then shut your mouth when someone else does something that doesn't even come close to what you did.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
White House Reacts to Clintons' Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
Game,
Democrats don't give a damn what is legal. If Bush does something, to them it has to be bad because it robs them of victories and power.
Bill and Hillary are such liars that you could catch them breaking the law and Hillary would sue you for invading her privacy and Bill would argue the law doesn't say what it says and also the law doesn't apply to him.
Democrats don't give a damn what is legal.
And you don't care what's true.
PCD has the nerve to call others partisan hacks! This is too rich!
Bill did it, so it must be OK, right? Same old argument.
You simply will not understand the implications of this act which is not YET, by the way, a pardon.
By this act, Bush has not pardoned a crook or a cocaine dealer, or a terrorist, or an embezzler. He has commuted the sentence of someone within his own administration, chief of staff to the vp and assistant to the president, a sentence for the conviction of obstruction of justice, a cover up of possible crimes against the security of the United States committed within the White House.
You hacks slay me. You forget Sandy Burger. You forget Jaime Gorelick on the 9/11 commission when she should have been kicked off and sworn in as witness. You forget Webb Hubbell. You forget a lot when it is your side.
Again, tell me how you Democrats practice what you preach and how you kicked Murtha, McDermott, and Jefferson out of Congress. Oh, that's right, you put them in positions of power including putting Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.
Again, none of you hypocrites can refute anything from the Sister Toldjah post, can you.
Sandy Berger--admitted his guilt and was convicted.
Jamie Gorelick--misunderstood and abused by those trying to cover up pre-911 intelligence failures (the "Gorelick wall" is a myth: It's origins, according to the FISA court, actually go back to the 1980 Truong decision).
Webb Hubble--case dismissed by the US Supreme Court (with Scalia and Thomas joining the majority).
William Jefferson--off the important committees after his indictment (with prominent Dems and Dem activists, myself included, calling for his removal).
John Murtha--Never took the bribe. They have it on tape.
Jim McDermott--Returned the money (given legally) once he learned the giver was involved in the oil-for-food scandal, a fact not known in 2002 when the money was (again, legally) given.
Yawn.
Dodge, dodge, dodge. Lie, lie, lie.
What's in the ST post that I'm supposed to refute? Can you be specific? She seems mostly to be copy-pasting press releases or something.
As to the specifics of Game's post, this is actually not true:
Clinton did the same things
Bush violated the pardon guidelines, which Clinton did not. We can go back and forth about whether Clinton or Bush should or should not have pardoned or commuted as they did. But the fact is that Clinton stayed within the boundaries of accepted protocol and Bush did not.
In fact, Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is unusual for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that no other president has ever pardoned or commuted the sentence of anyone who never served one day of their punishment.
Jay is the only one who kind of stayed on topic...
Like I said, I don't really care about this...
I"m just saying the ONLY people who should NOT say anything are the Clintons...
Even if he did stay within the law (and I am fairly certain Clinton skipped some steps on the pardon process)...he pardoned scum bags, he is a scum bag, shut up
Bill and Hillary aren't the same person, you know.
Other than that, though, I gotta go with Game on this one. Bill Clinton really doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of leveling criticisms for abuse of pardon authority, having abused pardon authority. (At the very least he never pardoned anybody involved in the coverup of a crime he himself was privy to, like Bush.)
But he hasn't, to my knowledge. I hadn't heard that he'd had any comment about the Libby pardon.
Hillary hasn't pardoned anybody. I don't see what she has to do with it. Are we supposed to hold her responsible for every decision of her husband? That seems a little ridiculous.
Chet, as far as the wing nuts are concerned, there is no difference between Bill and Hillary. Before the election is over they will probably claim that Monica Lewinsky gave her oral sex in the Oval Office while Bill was away.
Their insane hate and fear of the Clintons is bordering on psychosis.
And Jim offers nothing to the debate...and congrats Jim, that is 1000 posts in a row...a blogger record
...a blogger record
...previously held by you?
Game, you now prove that you do not read the comments on your own blog. Or is it just SOP that evidence refuting your case "offers nothing to the debate."
So I will ask you to read comment number 4 and comment number 9 here.
Game,
Start with the first post in the thread if you're looking for posts that "offer nothing to the debate." Or find your own responses such as "f#$% you" to others on this blog. Those comments are quite insightful.
Andy,
Maybe if you stopped trying to cybersquat you'd realize that you Libs have come in here and tried to take over.
Now, you want to say thet you don't add anything to the debate, that would be the truth.
Phil, Jay, Jim, and Chet are Democrat partisan hacks. Jim can't think of anything original if it didn't come off of Think Progress. He got caught at it, and I blew him out with a cite from Think Progress when he made a huge lie about Democrats not wanting to shut down Talk Radio.
Now, Andy, tell me where the current Democrats actually respect the Constitution. Or that Bill and Hillary selling pardons respect both precident and the rule of law, and how those sales like their renting of the Lincoln Bedroom directly for Campaign Donations were not worse than a commutation of sentence for Libby.
PCD,
Game invited us over from TAM. Bitch at him. Find another blog if all you can do is cry about differing perspectives, invent countless strawmen, and lie incessantly.
You calling others partisan hacks is too rich.
Andy,
Did game say take over his blog?
Another thing, Andy, Jim got nailed for lying, yet you and Phil venerate him isn't that practicing a double standard? Oh, I forgot, that is Liberalism in practice. When liberals lie, it is ok.
I venerate Jim? Do you always invent details as you go along? Can you structure a factual argument?
You whine like a little girl. Go find Game and cry about us liberal bullies that prevent this blog from being filled completely with conservative viewpoints.
lets see...I made a very simple and easy to follow observation...
Only someone who is far, far, far left would disagree...
If you pardon 140 people in ONE day, you have no credibility to say anything now..
But that only makes sense to people with integrity...
So far today Andy has made three personal attacks...
PCD...if you ignore andy...he will go away...if he ever makes an actual comment that involves facts and not the liberal emotional response with a side of personal attacks...then we can respond...
I wonder how it must feel to live a life where I am emotional all day and just think the US sucks, everything sucks, and we are to blame...
Ah, the game and his glass house weighs in. When did I say that I blame the U.S. for everything that ills the world? I get it- that's one of your briliiant insights into the minds of those who don't agree with you 100%.
You are delusional. Apparently insulting generalizations aren't personal attacks and add to the debate.....if they're uttered by you or PCD.
Game, If you pardon 140 people in ONE day . . .
Well, that's traditionally how it's done. Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, and all the way back, typically do the pardons in January just before they leave.
pcd, I left you a challenge on the other thread. I hope you take me up on it.
In fairness to Bush, 113 pardons were issued to people who served their entire sentence. The remaining four are commutations.
Now, with the Clintons, it is dead wrong to say, like Romney, that they handed out pardons like lollipops. Quid pro quo, and cynical pandering is more like it.
The Clintons pardoned 16 FALN terrorists so Hillary could pander to Puerto Ricans in NY. And let us not forget about Hugh Rodham receiving 400K to get Glenn Brasswell and Carlos Vignali pardoned. The same applies with Marc Rich-- the Clintons weren't impressed with Scooter Libby's argument. They were impressed by Mrs. Rich's huge donations to the DNC and the Clinton library.
Regarding Clinton pardons, I still have seen no examples presented where pardons or commutations were given to people who worked in the White House and were connected to possible crimes against US security by the same people who pardoned them.
I get it now. If George pardons someone who was in the administration, #1, it automatically means there's a cover-up or some other vile intent at work, and #2, it also has to pass muster with the perceptions of people on the left, who in this case assume there were "possible crimes" to which others in the admin MIGHT be connected. In other words, first prove the man ISN'T guilty. I believe that's how it works here---a Republican must be proven not guilty before he's assumed innocent.
Jason and Marshall...one two punch...and Andy still has not said ONE thing to add to the debate...
And just to clear it up...to Jim, Libby is much, much worse than 16 FALN terrorists...man, that keeps being brought up, but never commented on...I wonder why???
I don't need to comment on your freaking FALN people who served YEARS in prison. That has been done quite well by others.
I have made no judgment whatsoever about Libby compared to the FALN people. There is no comparison to be made here and comparing the two is not the point.
You only compare them to deflect from the real point which you continue again and again and again to IG-freaking-nore.
Marshall, re: #1...no. The point is not that Libby was a member of the Bush Administration. Bush could pardon some one in the Commerce Department or some other federal office. I doubt there would be any kind of uproar about that. So that false straw man is uh false.
Re: #2, no. Other than the crimes for which Libby was convicted, it is unclear whether or not a crime was committed. We don't know because Libby obstructed the investigation and for that he was convicted.
We do know that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent. This is a fact. The CIA confirms this fact. Furthermore, you have yet to show me any White House official who has EVER denied that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent.
We do know that Cheney knew Plame was a CIA agent. That is a fact proved by his notes.
We do know that Libby told several reporters that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That is a fact. This is confirmed by the testimony of those reporters.
We also know that Libby told the FBI and testified to the Grand Jury that he learned about Plame's status from reporters. We know that this is false from the testimony of these reporters. Those reporters also testified that they did not know that Plame was a CIA agent until Libby told them. That means that Libby lied and obstructed justice. The jury found this to be true.
The fact that Libby worked directly for the vp and the president and that Cheney's notes refer to Plame, and that exposing the covert status of Plame would hurt an administration critic raises suspicions that a cover up occurred. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand this. Anybody who can make a dastardly conspiracy out of "travelgate", can surely see that suspicions are quite valid in this case.
If George pardons someone who was in the administration, #1, it automatically means there's a cover-up or some other vile intent at work
Gosh, you don't think maybe there's just a little bit of a potential conflict of interest?
Truly your credulousness is astounding.
I believe that's how it works here---a Republican must be proven not guilty before he's assumed innocent.
Hrm, you appear to have forgotten that Libby was proven guilty by a sympathetic jury of his peers, prosecuted by a Republican appointee, and sentenced according to Bush's own federal guidelines by a Republican-appointed judge.
Even Bush didn't dispute the guilty verdict. When on Earth did we get to the point where we're acting like Libby wasn't found guilty? That's conservatism in a nutshell - ignoring inconvenient facts.
much worse than 16 FALN terrorists...man, that keeps being brought up, but never commented on...I wonder why???
1) Each one of those guys had served prison terms of nearly 20 years in prison. Contrary to federal commutation guidelines, Libby was commuted before he'd ever served a day.
2) None of those individuals were ever implicated in any involvement in any acts that actually resulted in injury. With that in mind I think 20 years in prison for vandalism is more than just - and much, much longer than other similar crimes.
Actually the FALN commutations seem to be the use of pardon authority in the way it was intended - for the rectification of excessive sentences. I'm not saying Clinton never abused pardon authority - I think the Marc Rich pardon was one such abuse - but honestly, just calling the FALN guys "ZOMG TERRURISTS!" doesn't prove that this is an example. The guys were vandals, at best, and they each served at least 19 years. Where's the problem there?
And game continues to live in a glass house.
What substantive debate has been proposed? Endless rounds of "but Clinton did it"? Suggestions that "Democrats don't give a damn what is legal"? When a valid point is put forth, I'll jump in. Until then, clean up your own house before passing judgment.
andy, look up at Chets post...even if I think he is 100% wrong he alteast commented on this topic, with some personal attacks thrown in...focus
Try focusing on my suggestion to clean up your own house before passing judgment. It must be a coincidence that every post you don't agree with has personal attacks.....
Of course you never resort to personal attacks.
No that my friend is a (sincere)personal attack!
Yes, game I know that my post was somewhat off the topic of clinton. Unfortunately, you don't have a post for commenting on the Scooter thing. This is what is called 'framing' the conversation. Something that some on this blog(I believe you included) told me once didn't happen. It is those kind of comments that make me question how much your really understand politics and what is happening...hell you are doing it yourself and don't even know it!
Chet and Jim,
You miss my point. Of course there might be a conflict of interest for Bush commuting the sentence of a former staffer, but you again make the mistake of assuming there is a problem with doing so just because of a possible conflict. Equally possible is that he knows the man and his case better than any of us and can easily determine that this guy isn't worthy of the sentence. A possible conflict of interest doesn't equate to a definite malevolent action.
The question of whether Libby totally fucked up the investigation is a lame one. He's one guy. What kind of cop is Fitz if one guy can so thoroughly mess up and investigation? Besides, Armitage was the leaker, probably the first one, and as Plame was such a low level CIA employee, whose name was already out there, Libby could mention it a hundred times and not be guilty of exposing anyone.
Then, you talk about what the reporters said as if they are beyond reproach. Why is that? Libby has served with distinction and on the word of a reporter he's gonna hang? There were questions about the reporters and their notes, questions about the FBI interrogators notes, and questions about why Andrea Mitchell's notes were prevented from use by the defense. This trial wasn't exactly perfect nor was the investigation, but if you're only reading what lefty sources tell you, then I guess it would be hard to see things any differently than you do.
This whole thing should have been called off the moment they knew that Armitage leaked the name. Period.
What I think it comes down to is that the left, IN GENERAL!!!!, feels they have been thwarted from the moment Bush was elected and any, ANYTHING that can demonstrate that Bush is the stupid, evil, self-serving, chid of Satan that they've pegged him as being is a good thing. They see a little of that salvation in this trial. I think many leftists would melt into a puddle of goo should Libby's appeal be successful and all charges get dropped.
Armitage was the leaker, probably the first one, and as Plame was such a low level CIA employee, whose name was already out there, Libby could mention it a hundred times and not be guilty of exposing anyone.
Except, Marshall, Libby was handing out Plame's name before Novak ran his story. So was Rove. Matt Cooper filed his story at Time, naming Plame (and, he later admitted, sourced from Rove), before Novak's column came out. Had Time not sat on it, we'd be talking about Rove as the "first leaker," not Armitage.
That argument is baloney anyway, since it still suggests that "run around and tell everyone that Wilson's wife is CIA" is a legitimate strategy for the United States federal government to use against someone it thought might be telling untruths. I don't see how anyone can think that such middle-school back-biting is worthy of the White House's time, let alone our tax dollars.
And as for credibility, isn't that what juries are for? Libby claims he heard about Plame from Tim Russert (which Russert denied), but Judy Miller's notes say that Libby told her before the supposed conversation with Russert--and Miller was willing to go to jail so she didn't have to admit that. Plus the WH memos naming Plame (and denoting her identity as S for Secret), minutes of meetings Libby attended where the "Screw Joe Wilson" strategy was discussed, and testimony from others that Libby knew--all of which pre-dated the alleged Russert conversation. The jury believed the documents, notes, and testimony. They believed that there's no way Scooter could have known about Plame one day and then "learned" about her the next from Tim Russert. They believe when he told the FBI and the grand jury that, he was lying, not simply misremembering.
And do you want to say that Bush was wrong when he said he respected the jury's verdict--i.e., he thinks the jury made the right call?
Of course there might be a conflict of interest for Bush commuting the sentence of a former staffer, but you again make the mistake of assuming there is a problem with doing so just because of a possible conflict.
It's not an assumption. It's the rational explanation.
When you see a guy in the middle of the night burying something plastic-wrapped, out in the forest, in the pouring rain, you don't assume he's laying a time capsule. The fact that he's gone to such extensive personal inconvenience to conceal his actions is evidence of the underlying crime.
The coverup is always evidence of the crime.
Equally possible is that he knows the man and his case better than any of us and can easily determine that this guy isn't worthy of the sentence.
How is that fair? Why should Libby get special treatment just because he's Bush's friend?
If Bush doesn't think the sentence fits the crime, then he should change the sentencing guidelines. Why doesn't he?
A possible conflict of interest doesn't equate to a definite malevolent action.
At this point I don't think the Bush administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. At this point it's abundantly obvious that there's no limit to their mendacity when it suits them.
I don't see the rationale for giving them the benefit of the doubt in this case - but then, I'm obviously not drinking whatever kool-aid you guys are passing around.
Armitage was the leaker, probably the first one, and as Plame was such a low level CIA employee,
Just to refresh your memory - Plame was actually a bureau chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations Counterproliferation Division. She led a unit charged with responsibilities related to weapons proliferation issues in Iraq.
Incidentally - Armitage wasn't the leaker - because he only leaked her name and status as Wilson's wife. Her CIA employment was leaked by Libby, at Cheney's behest - but because of his perjury and obstruction of justice, they were unable to prosecute.
Libby has served with distinction
Wha...? "Served with distinction?" You're kidding, right?
Do you know anything about this guy's career? He worked for the administration for like 3 years. What exactly did he do in that time to "distinguish" himself besides cover Cheney's ass?
Chet, when confronted with facts, Marshall and Jason turn tail and run.
Post a Comment