ok lets just say there is no difference which there clearly is, being that this case invloved them all of them, their coverup , their obstruction, their lies... what's your point in bringing up any pardons of the past?? are you trying to justify this pardon ?? what exactly is your point??
Let me help you out with your dilemma as to why Bush's commutation of a loyal aide's excessive sentence from an absurd prosecution differs from Clinton's 11th hour pardons of numerous felons, including drug dealers, Marc Rich, et al. Clinton was a Democrat. I hope that clears it up for you.
His point is to highlight the hypocrisy of the liberal media and the partisan democrats. They still have no problem with Clinton in effect selling pardons on his way out the white House door, but want to hang bush for commuting an obviously excessive sentence in a case that never should have been brought in the first place. Let's not forget that Clinton also pardoned people like the notorious Susan MacDougal who had protected him by stonewalling grand jury questions. It is also only natural to look to the past to put acts in their historical perspective. How can we say that this commutation is appropriate or not without comparing it to those issued by his predecessors? History teaches us that it is not unusual for presidents to pardon aides who are caught up in partisan battles or who take the fall to protect the president. In this case Bush's actions seem totally appropriate to me, in fact I would say he should have granted Libby a pardon before the trial. The White House should have never brought in an independent counsel in the first place. When that counsel learned the first day of his investigation that Richard Armitage of the the State Department had been the leaker, he should have closed his investigation. Instead, he prosecuted Libby for basically having a different recollection of a phone call from months previously than leftwing journo tim russert. In the course of his investigation, the prosecutor also managed to put a totally innocent reporter in jail for months. He is the one who should be investigated, not Libby.
The liberal media and talk shows have become hysterical over this and are making all kinds of ridiculous predictions aobut how the voters will react. That only highlights how out of touch they are. Normal people living outside the Beltway are not even aware of who Scooter Libby is and couldn't care less about his sentence being commuted. Anyone who is upset was never going to vote for a republican in any event.
Wilsons claims were proven to be lies. Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09 Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle Libby was convicted of "obstruction" for a crime that wasn't committed. Whatever, the guy sure as hell doesn't deserve to spend 2.5 years in prison.
Clinton was still crushed by public opinion and the press. It's not like leaving office made him suddenly immune to criticism. However, it did make him immune to criticism for INCITING FURTHER LAWBREAKING, which is exactly what I am criticizing Bush for. I don't think, and did not claim, that Clinton's intentions were nobler than Bush's. I don't care, either. What I care about is the corruption of our government, and Bush's Libby commutation has the appearance of condoning further corrupt behavior, whereas Clinton's did not. Martin
Considering that Libby has been ruined, his family left penniless and he without the ability to practice his profession, do you honestly think his commutation will serve to embolden someone else who might try to mislead an investigation? If this were some sort of garden variety financial scandal involving government officials, I might tend to agree with you. The facts of this case are so egregious however and so clearly demonstrate an out of control, abusive prosecutor rather than corrupt behavior by Libby, that I still think Bush should have just pardoned him before the trial.
"Numerous felons"? Of course they were felons. Scooter Libby is a felon. People generally don't get pardoned for misdemeanors. Incidentally Marc Rich wasn't a felon. He was never convicted and it's unclear whether he would have been convicted had he stood trial. Scooter Libby claims to this day that Marc Rich was innocent. All you guys bringing up Marc Rich should chew on that for a while. The drug dealers and other "little people" are the ones that SHOULD be pardoned. They did their required 5 years (or more), they applied for a pardon though the normal channels, they were approved by a nonpartisan bureaucracy, and they were pardoned as the President was leaving office. This is the usual pattern for which there are tens of thousands of precedents throughout Presidential history. Those of you talking about "morality" of pardons should approve of them. If there is any morality to be found, it is with clemency for people who have no connections and no political power. Martin
Lewis Libby is going to do JUST FINE. Ruined my ass. The Republican machine takes care of its own. Somehow I don't think the Libbys are going to starve. Bush commuted the one part of the sentence that largesse and patronage cannot touch. With that said, ruination is the very least that should happen to a lawyer convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. What, facts like, he was convicted by a jury of his peers and given a sentence consistent with the sentencing guidelines for his offense? The prosecutor doesn't declare guilt or innocence. The prosecutor doesn't determine the sentence. The jury could have found him innocent, they could have nullified law if necessary, and the judge can give the minimum sentence. They were all there, they saw all the facts of the case, and Libby was convicted and sentenced. That's how justice works. So where are the egregious facts? Martin