Scooter Libby's Sentence Commuted

[BJean 16]

L8RBloom: I got just as sick and tired of hearing about Watergate!

However I do believe that as embarrassing as Clinton's antics in office were, there just IS NO comparison when speaking to the horrible decisions of this administration and the impact they have had and will continue to have way into the United States' future. Everytime I think about that night, so long ago, when George Bush bombed a city and called it "shock and awe" and expected this country to be proud of his actions is utterly unbelievable! To compare the two people just makes no sense at all to me. It's like tossing a red herring into the discussion.

Yes, you're right, our perspective depends on our politics. Both sides are guilty, but it is still very annoying when it doesn't really prove anything. Sometimes all it does is give us a chance to post something when we don't have a good rebuttal to an attack.

[L8BloomR 1]

L8RBloom: I got just as sick and tired of hearing about Watergate!

However I do believe that as embarrassing as Clinton's antics in office were, there just IS NO comparison when speaking to the horrible decisions of this administration and the impact they have had and will continue to have way into the United States' future. Everytime I think about that night, so long ago, when George Bush bombed a city and called it "shock and awe" and expected this country to be proud of his actions is utterly unbelievable! To compare the two people just makes no sense at all to me. It's like tossing a red herring into the discussion. Yes, you're right, our perspective depends on our politics. Both sides are guilty, but it is still very annoying when it doesn't really prove anything. Sometimes all it does is give us a chance to post something when we don't have a good rebuttal to an attack.

No red herring with my post....we were discussing pardons and comparing them between presidents. Bringing the war into a discussion of similiar presidential pardons is what I would call "tossing a red herring." And I wasn't trying to "rebut" anything, I was putting presidential pardons into perspective. This is apples and oranges and doesn't make sense to me, either....

[BJean 16]

Gee, I'm sorry. I obviously misunderstood your motives. Does that mean though that you are against all presidential pardons? Was that your point? You were pointing out that we have a couple of bad presidents, Clinton and Bush, because they've used their power to pardon criminals?

[L8BloomR 1]

Gee, I'm sorry. I obviously misunderstood your motives. Does that mean though that you are against all presidential pardons? Was that your point? You were pointing out that we have a couple of bad presidents, Clinton and Bush, because they've used their power to pardon criminals?

Oh my, it appears you haven't read any of my posts. This whole thread started because someone was shocked by Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence. The gist of my posts is that all presidents have done them and I don't like them, either. But to put them into perspective, I (and others) posted a link to remind people that Clinton has done them, also, as well as other presidents. I said AGAIN that I don't like pardons because they make the president look dirty, but it is within each president's power to make them and there is nothing we can do about it. I never called anyone "bad", and there was no discussion of Clinton's actual presidency until you brought up the comparison between the two. My goodness!

[BJean 16]

It must be getting really late because your post made me giggle hysterically.

I have a feeling that we agree about scoundrels in office and presidents who use their power to do things that are immoral.

At any rate, this has been fun, but I have to give it a rest.

I hope I didn't highjack the thread with all this. Afterall, current events are what make the world go 'round.

[L8BloomR 1]

It must be getting really late because your post made me giggle hysterically.

I have a feeling that we agree about scoundrels in office and presidents who use their power to do things that are immoral.

At any rate, this has been fun, but I have to give it a rest.

I hope I didn't highjack the thread with all this. Afterall, current events are what make the world go 'round.

Oh my gosh, it is late.... good night..... :notagree

[DerickM 1]

Everytime I think about that night, so long ago, when George Bush bombed a city and called it "shock and awe"

A meaningless statement.

Give me a break, I suppose you must hate ALL presidents who ordered bombing(s) then right?! Roosevelt, Truman, Clinton, etc, etc

I thought people this stupid only existed on TV. .

[lisah25 3]

Found some things I thought were interesting.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595

“Even left-wing newspapers and columnists have rebuked Clinton for pardoning Rich. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., declared himself "troubled."”

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/01/congress.pardons/index.html

“Congressional committees on both sides of the Capitol intend to hold hearings next week looking into former President Clinton's controversial pardon of financier Marc Rich.”

Interestingly, it seems that Scooter may have supported Marc Rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

“During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. [2] In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][3]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon”

[BJean 16]

Derrick I hope you feel good to have gotten your snipe at me out. I am not stupid. You may not agree with me, but it doesn't make me stupid.

Your second paragraph is suspect, however. If you think that, I am amazed. I prefer to think you just posted it for effect.

I am not anti-war in general. I am anti-war when we are wrong. Bush's bombing of Iraq is quite different than any other time our country has bombed other countries, with the exception of Viet Nam, of course. When we discovered that his father had a secret operation called "The Iran Contra Affair" and it was made public, we thought we would never see a president pull something that bad again. Turns out his son is more than willing to use his power to do whatever he thinks is right, no matter what our intelligence tells us, our military advises, or the public at large expects.

The fact that some people are still supportive of the war in Iraq is what is stupid. :phanvan

[BJean 16]

Thanks for the info, Lisa.

[DerickM 1]

Pardon me, Second Paragraph? Where?

I apologize for the snipe my tolerance for bleeding hearts seems to get less and less every day.

[BJean 16]

That's okay Derrick. My tolerance today is less for the right-wing neo-cons than it was yesterday, so I certainly understand.

[DerickM 1]

On that we agree at least BJean!

As hard as it may be for you to believe I am not "right-wing" (registered independent) nor am I "neo-con"

I am staunchly pro-union, pro-choice and anti-big biz to name a few of my political contradictions.

[BJean 16]

I find your beliefs to be very interesting, Derrick. I honestly didn't know if you were right wing or not. But the interesting part, from what you've just revealed about your beliefs, is that you appear to be for human rights. That's why being pro-war seems out of character. My primary opposition to the war is not economical, it is purely out of concern for all the lives that are being lost over there.

I know some people believe that our presence in Iraq is keeping this country safe from terrorists. I just happen to disagree with that logic. I see nothing that proves that to be the case. In fact there are some strong indications that the terrorists are becoming stronger and better funded...only to one day possibly make 9/11 pale by comparison. Just think how long it took them between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, and look at the difference between those two acts in effectiveness.

[green 6]

The continued "infidel" presence in the mid-east enrages extremist muslims and is likely to only aggravate terrorist activities at home and abroad. They view these lands as theirs and don't welcome the presence of the infidel. As we know, these people are riled up these days. Their behaviour is almost incomprehensible to most of us....