As David Knowles noted, Hillary showed all kinds of outrage that President Bush would commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby:
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
I wonder if she'll show equal outrage with these Presidential pardons:
- Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(b)(i); engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. § 1957
- Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1623
- Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)
And the list goes on and on. How could the President get away with this and we heard nary a peep from Sen. Clinton? Because it was her husband--Bill Clinton-- who issued the commutations or pardons.
Look at the statement by Clinton above, it's pure red meat for the rabid left-wing base and all of it is false. What dissent has been "quelled?" Ask any liberal that and they will stand with their mouth agape unable to answer it. How exactly has the President "punished" those who opposed him? I know these are tough, maybe impossible questions to answer, but I didn't bring them up.
'When Marc Rich was pardoned (that story went away quite quickly, did it not?), was that not proof that in the Clinton administration "cronyism and ideology trump(ed) competence and justice."? He is a man that committed some serious crimes and then fled the country to avoid prosecution. His wife was a major campaign contributor and appeared with the Clintons often. Would not that make her a "crony?" Spare me the empty rhetoric and faux outrage, Hillary. Your husband let drug dealers, armed robbers and assorted other hoodlums off the hook while President Bush commuted the sentence of a man who did the exact same crime as your husband.
I'm sorry, my outrage meter didn't even tick above 0.001.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Bush is a national disgrace and an abomination,and we are not judging laura bush for what her husband did,so why should we judge Hillary for a pardon bill had done.By the way bush's entire administration has been working to fullfill PNAC goals,and thereby destroy america as we all knew it.Bush is working for a global satanic cabal,hellbent on turning the masses of the world into nothing more than wage slaves.Under clinton we had an awesome economy,and lots of jobs,not to mention a balanced budget.Hillary you got my vote,I know you would make an even better president than your husband.
Tori at 10:11AM on Jul 3rd 2007
2. Scooter Libby lied and we can argue over why forever. President Bush had the power to commute this sentence and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The President promised that if anyone was leaking information from his administration, he would take care of it. He did. Al Qaeda has enlisted Doctors. President Bush has his hands full dreaming about the next attack. Scooter seems quite trivial when compared to our state of health care. What we do to combat chaos prevents another 9-11. As I see it we have a physician driven suicidal attack on the horizon. America is defenseless and unprepared because the rich refuse to permit health care for all. We saw the dry run with XDR TB. One viral bomb could cause multiple deaths, widespread fear, quarrantines, economic chaos and confusion. It could be worse than 9-11 because America is more defenseless than we were when we had no air defenses. I think a one person plague is more important than commuting Scooter. Sometimes a botched attack could be a distraction. What damage could one evil doctor do? That's just "Sicko."
Cecil Jones at 10:29AM on Jul 3rd 2007
3. "What dissent has been 'quelled?'... How exactly has the President 'punished' those who opposed him?
Well, David Iglesias comes to mind.
Mike at 12:41PM on Jul 3rd 2007
4. to Tori: because Hillary's running for President, that's why. Furthermore, Hillary assumed for herself the role of co-president. And if Hillary wishes to comment on the matter, she's fair game.
Hillary is an evil, cold, calculating witch. Her name ought never be used in conjunction with the term "President".
Joel Inman at 12:52PM on Jul 3rd 2007
5. Mike,
David Iglesias is the best you can do? He was a lawyer serving at the pleasure of the President and the President has every right to fire him.
Clinton fired all of the attorneys when he had the chance.
If this is the best you can do to show the depth of Bush's "quelling" and "punishment", I believe I've made my point and you've backed it up nicely.
Thanks.
Scott at 12:55PM on Jul 3rd 2007
6. Scott,
You embarrass yourself, and all of us, with your pathetic talking-points. Sean Hannity called, he wants his shameful false-ignorance back. Whether Bush had the right to fire Iglesias and the other Attorneys or not, they were fired ("punished", one might say) for not being "loyal Bushies", and you know that. Clinton fired all of his Attorneys at the beginning of the new term just like presidents before him did (note: no selective firings based on political loyalty), and you know that too. You suggested that it may be impossible to show examples of Bush quelling dissent and punishing opposition, so I thought I'd give it a shot. If you want more examples, let's talk about how this Administration has consistently questioned the patriotism of anyone who dares to oppose the way it fights the "War on Terror". What seems impossible to me is that you believe even half of the BS you throw around here defending this Administration. It appears to me that in order to be a dedicated Republican, as it is politically defined today, you must be at least one of a few things: a fanatic about money, a fanatic about guns, or a fanatic about religion. I suspect your passion is money. Unfortunately for you and everyone else tasked with trying to keep the Republican machine running (for their various reasons), you end up having to defend a lot of crazy crap from the different factions of your party, even when it blatantly goes against your own values. That's why Democrats lose elections. Democratic voters are masochistic idealists, clinging to their cherished values to further their own demise. The ones who voted for Nader in 2000 because they refused to vote for "the lesser of two evils" (as I did myself, still an idealist at the naive age of 18). The ones who refused to vote for Kerry because he represented the political establishment. The ones who will never vote for Hillary because she won't apologize for someone else's war. So you (and Rush, and Hannity...) wear your selective-morality proudly, you ignore your own hypocrisies, you defend criminals and crazies and demonize Clinton, and you laugh on election night, and you laugh all the way to the bank. And you can sleep at night because humans are amazing, self-serving creatures. It's easy to rationalize our own sins. We dominate the world for a reason, because guilt never trumps power. So Democrats have their values, and Republicans have the power. This war is finally peeling some "true Conservatives" away from the party, but I'm not optimistic that it will be enough to end the Republican grip on power. Because as soon as those voters are tricked again into thinking that Democrats just want to steal their money and give it away, they'll swallow their values and vote Republican again.
Mike at 2:13PM on Jul 3rd 2007
7. Mike, buddy, did you spit venom on your keyboard as you wrote that?
Read what I've written, I am on record slamming the President and the party for things I disagree with.
I'm a gun rights supporter, haven't been to church since Easter and own a business that employs people and provides them with good wages and health insurance, so yeah, I like money.
How can Democrats/liberals cling to their values when it seems as though they have none on alot of fronts. Standing up abortion, saying they support the troops and doing everything they can to undermine them, seeing racist boogeymen in every situation and just plain being unhappy people. It must be tough.
I know it's hard to handle Mike, but we are in a war with people who want to kill us for no other reason than our liberal laws and lifestyles. They will not stop unless we show them that further action is detrimental to their well-being. London is just the beginning and it will last for at least another ten years.
Finally, I sleep very well at night. The only thought that scares me is people such as Clinton or Edwards taking control and doing exactly what you said, taking my hard-earned shekels and giving them to someone else without recourse. That's not only against American principles, it's against human principles.
Scott at 2:45PM on Jul 3rd 2007
8. Scott,
I didn't mean to suggest that you defend the President on everything, just that you defend him on some things that are downright pathetic, and you use the same lousy pathetic talking-point reasoning, and it makes you look like a tool. And you commit very few grammatical errors, so you must be intelligent enough to know that you're talking out of your rear-end. Also, just because Democrats don't share your values doesn't mean they don't have them (i.e. killing babies, undermining the troops, and being unhappy).
And as for the "War on Terror", if you sincerely believe that terrorists just want to kill us "for no other reason than our liberal laws and lifestyles", then you're a fool and a child. They want to kill us because of our decades-long involvement and influence in the middle east (i.e. our troops in Saudi Arabia), and probably primary because of our support of Israel. Also, if you believe they just hate our laws and lifestyles, why would they stop once further action becomes "detrimental to their well-being"? I'm pretty sure that anyone who is willing to crash a plane into a building or strap a bomb to themselves has already put their well-being aside. A terrorist mind is not a rational mind. They'll never just surrender in the face of our overwhelming force. The terrorist mind is a diseased mind, and the only way to defeat it is to prevent the disease from spreading, which is the opposite of what our foreign policy has been doing for the last six years. You're right about one thing, the problem isn't going away anytime soon, but it's going to keep getting worse until we realize that you can't just beat terrorism with a big stick. You have to see things in the long view and treat the whole problem.
As for those thieving Democrats, you need to wake-up. This Administration has been spending more money than any Democrat could've ever imagined, a Democrat was only president in decades who figured out how to balance the budget and support a strong economy, and the Democrats are the ones who want to stop spending all our money in Iraq and keep it here at home, so I'm not sure how you're still clinging to the idea of Republicans as the fiscally responsible ones. Yes, there's a much better chance that taxes will be raised on the very wealthy and corporations if there's a Democrat in the White House. But why do you automatically assume that's not the best thing for the country? The bottom line is, whoever our next president is will inherit one heck of a financial mess, and it's going to take a lot of hard work and sacrifice to fix it. Ending the war responsibly is a start. Cutting waste in all its forms should be a priority. But the fact is, we can't keep running these huge deficits, and we have other serious problems here at home that need fixing. This economy is leaving too many people behind. Something needs to be done about healthcare in this country. Our education system is broken. In short, our priorities are all out of whack. I'll never understand why you want to keep the reins in the hands of the people that got us so tangled-up in this mess, but it clearly has nothing to do with reason or rational thinking.
Mike at 5:13PM on Jul 3rd 2007
9. scott
well said and reasonable.
joem at 8:59PM on Jul 3rd 2007
10. Bill made those pardons, not hillary. it is unfair to group the 2 as a package. i don't always agree wih what my wife does and vice-versa and i'm sure most americans are like that. you don't neccessarily agree with your spouse on everything they do and just bc they do it doesn't mean you have to like it. so of course she can rightfully go after bush for this pardon, wait, excuse me, "commutation".
Patrick at 11:35PM on Jul 3rd 2007
11. Who is making the Marc Rich story go away ? Have any idea who the attorney was that represented Marc Rich in his appeal ? None other than one Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Interesting that as obviously a skilled a lawyer as Libby chose not to speak a word in his own defense at his own trial. It's also interesting that Libby had not even petitioned for clemency when the White House took action without consulting the Justice Department. Just wondering how many other pardons have been issued or sentences commuted by Executive order without ever being requested or without consultation from the U.S. Justice Department ?
How a trial and a verdict that was under the jurisdiction of a Republican appointed Justice Department, a Special Prosecutor appointed by Republicans, and a Judge appointed by Republicans can be "politically motivated" defies all logic. Of course the upholding of the verdict by a Republican appointed Court of Appeals is also supposed to be "political" as well. Did it ever occur to anyone that the only thing blatantly "political" here has been the unprecedented action taken by the President ?
max at 11:45AM on Jul 6th 2007
12. I agree with Scott, Mike sounds like a miserable numb nutted jackass. Eddie Hoffman
Eddie Hoffman at 1:52AM on Jul 9th 2007