In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, "You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what's your reaction to what President Bush did?"Wow, that's pretty bold coming from Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman." Apparently in Bill's world, the power of the pardon is appropriate for campaign contributors, but not appropriate to reduce a sentence to be more in line with the punishment for stealing top secret documents."Yeah, but I think the facts were different," Mr. Clinton said. "I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."
"It's wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up," Mr. Clinton added. "And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it."
The Democrats are reduced to ignoring or explaining away Clinton's pardons while being outraged over one Bush commutation. In so doing, they've lost their edge, they've lost their moral authority, and they've lost their minds in Bush Derangement Syndrome.
One final point. Bill Clinton' said that no one was ever fired from the White House for leaking Plame's identity. One point thing we now know is that Richard Armitage (inadvertently, he says) leaked her identity in 2003 and resigned along with Colin Powell after Bush's reelection in 2004, long before he was revealed in public as the leaker. This was known to the prosecutor even before he started. So what exactly was the White House supposedly covering up?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. For the record, Clinton was wrong too. Now what's your argument?
from Wikipedia...
"...Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".
Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[14]
Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[15] According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[16]"
Then why didn't Libby just say "it was Armitage"? Or is Armitage's resignation being used by the administrations's dogs to scapegoat him in retribution for his cooperation with the Special Prosecutor. Armitage is an honorable guy. When he and Powell resigned, how many guys who served in the military were left in the Bush White House?
Michael Reichert at 12:41PM on Jul 4th 2007
2. Bill Clinton can no longer be considered a non partisan former President. He's part of a campaign.
Steve Bonomo at 2:59PM on Jul 4th 2007
3. GHW Bush did not actively campaign for GW in 2000. Why is Bill Clinton actively campaigning for Hillary? I am sick and tired of this all in the family (or make believe) nonsense.
Stuart at 4:19PM on Jul 4th 2007
4. In response to Michael Reichert (1.);
"For the record, Clinton was wrong too. Now what's your argument?"
BINGO! I am continually amazed that the first sentence out of the mouths of those who defend this president and his actions is, "Well, Bill Clinton, blah, blah, blah..."
I have said elsewhere in these blogs that if it's WRONG when Clinton did it, how is it RIGHT when Bush does it? (Okay, it's "right" only in a most unfortunate sense.)
This Karl Rovian tactic of insult and ad hominum abuse is a useless distraction from discussion of substance; but it's S.O.P. for conservative commentators and their followers. It's Swiftboat mentality. And, man, does it play to the masses! Just look at the ascendance of Ann Coulter, the Great Right Muse at whose teat Bushies have apparently suckled.
I am still waiting to hear why we should feel sorry that Libby will lose his "law career" when he seems
(1.) not to know in the first place that lying obstructs truth-finding and therefore justice and
(2.) Valerie Plame's professional life in the CIA is over thanks to his erstwhile boss Cheney, as well as Armitage and Rove.
Liz at 4:36PM on Jul 4th 2007
5. The Cintons are very good snakeoil salesmen. They will rewrite whatever history they feel they can put over on the mindless idiots that support them and the very friendly mainstream media. He pardoned terrorists, thieves, Hillary's brother, drug dealers. the list of dangerous people goes on and on... Bush commuted the sentence of a man caught up in a very political show trail. Fact vplaime was NOT a covert agent, and if she was did not conform to the rigors of the law that is being asserted. 2. Schumer who was head of the SENATE re-election committee, pressured the AG to name Fitzgerald, through the Chicago AG's office, and who had bad blood with Libby over the (*yes) Mark Rich affair. Schumer had his co-conspirator. The scope of the investigation ended at the knowledge of Armitage's admitting the so called leak. Libby's testimony, which was voluntary, came later. Fitzgerald was attempting to get at anyone in the administration and when he fell short he laid a perjury trap for Libby... Footnote Wilson told many people about his wifes profession...prior to the entire non event.
Clinton is a liar... that is a proven fact.. He committed perjury... Hillary committed perjury , she is a liar and worse.( Rose documents et al)... This was a show trial that Stalin would have been proud of...and the fools bought into it hook line and sinker...the DEMOCRATS are smiling like the socialist snakes they are.
joem at 5:07PM on Jul 4th 2007
6. So THAT's why it's wrong when Clinton does it, but right when Bush does it! I knew someone would take up an argument to explain this.
But as you say, Libby's is a show trial. It shows how this administration is corrupt to its core. Lying to the Feds though it's not even necessary? Good one, Scooter!
As you say, Joe, "Clinton is a liar... that is a proven fact.. He committed perjury... Hillary committed perjury , she is a liar and worse.( Rose documents et al"
Libby, brilliant attorney that he is, still perjured himself to the Feds whether he was trapped or not. (Didn't he ever hear about Martha Stewart?)
I wonder if perhaps you'd explain from your sanctimonious apologist's view about the real damage this president has done to this country and to the world in general.
Let's start with Iraq. That working for you, Joe? What's the real story there? And Haliburton. (Got a counter argument about how Clinton did the same thing?)
What are you cons proudest of? $.5 trillion of treasury spent on a "war" that was planned before 9/11? (Got a counter argument about how Clinton did the same thing? Oops, wrong! Clinton left $.5 trillion surplus in the treasury when he left office!)
Or do you prefer the fact that 3600 Americans have been killed in Iraq...for what, exactly? Not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed? Is that what Mission Accomplished means?
How about Abu Grahib or Guantanomo or extraordinary rendition? Proud achievements for this noble democratic tradition. (Got a counter argument about how Clinton did the same thing? Oooops, no, in fact no wars during his tenure!)
Or the consolidation of executive powers and the above the law mentality that gave us the erosion of personal freedoms and shoved it in our faces and called it the Patriot Act? You know, the kind of thinking only a monarchy accrues to itself.
Or can you explain the fear mongering after 9/11 or the absolutism of Bush's binary thinking? You're either with us or against us mentality?
You say Clinton gave Rose a pass? I say Delay gave the US a good screwing and Abramoff gave Native Americans the Golden Shaft.
Or, how about that chimera WMD and throwing a real American --who actually went to war when he was called-- under the bus (rather than the simpering hero "Scooter"). Giving Powell that crap to sell to the UN and the world was a disgrace.
How much safer is the US and the world now? Do you think the people of Glasgow would have had a nice flaming SUV stuck in its airport's craw if our genius in the Oval office hadn't STARTED a nonsensical war in a culture he knew nothing about? How many friends do you think we have now in the world?
How about the domestic issues you can puff yourself up over?
No child left behind? Hahahaha! Man do those kids test nicely! They may not be able to think or ever have a creative solution to a problem, but, hey, I bet they can tell you the definition of incompetence even if they don't know how to recognize it when they are surrounded by it. Those damn socialist snakes actually want all fifth grade students to be doing the same assignment across the country at the same time? Ooooops, those aren't socialists! They're Republicans! The same ones who want government out of Americans' lives stopped all forward motion of the country to keep Terry Schiavo alive. And the difference would be?
Immigration...good one, Bush!
Darfur, Sudan...what a standup guy!
And healthcare...well, too busy killing people in Iraq to worry about taking care of the living.
So, Joe, which of this group of achievements do you point to with pride? Which do you think future generations will thank Bush for? Can you put a positive spin on any of this? Can you do it without using the name Clinton?
The death and destruction and blood this president has on his hands is appalling. Luckily for him he's too stooooopid to ever know how horrid a presidency his has been. Sadly for us, we cannot even travel in Europe without fear anymore. They hate us there in record numbers. Even our traditional allies, Italy, Spain, the UK...way to go Bush!
Liz at 6:46PM on Jul 4th 2007
7. Note to Stuart above:
Why WOULDN'T Bill campaign for Hillary? He draws crowds here and around the world in huge numbers. You may hate this idea, but Bill back in the White House would restore a lot of confidence in people about their government.
GWH Bush didn't actively campaign for W b/c it couldn't help him win in 2000. (Notice how W didn't win the election anyway.) He was a one-term president who lost big in 1992 and not particularly well-liked.
There are a lot of people who have had it with this president and how he has trampled the democratic ideals of this country. How he is destroying us from within. Many are enraged. The drumbeat is just starting now. Resign! Resign! Resign! It's just gonna get louder.
Liz at 8:46AM on Jul 5th 2007
8. He was not the leak that is a fact. That is when is should have ended but they had to get him on something or lose face. 2 1/2 years is too much and Bush cut it but left the fines and probation so he is paying a price. Does Bush have the authority to commute his sentence? Yes, did he break any laws? No! Is this a waste of time to spend our tax dollars to look into this? YES but as long as its against Bush the Democrats don't care. Its all part of the witch hunt that leads no where and we will pick up the bill for it!
Sarkis Najarian at 8:20PM on Jul 5th 2007
9. Sarkis, maybe you now understand why so many people were so livid over the investigation over so many years of the Clintons with no indictments. Fitzgerald got a conviction.
But according to NBC, the CIA/Leak investigation was done on the cheap:
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year CIA/Leak investigation has cost the tax-payer the least amount of any Justice Department probe by an Independent Counsel in history.
NBC News has learned, that since the start of Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame leak, beginning in December 2003, the total cost to be reported to the GAO is about $1.5 million.
By contrast, the decade-long probe of former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros by Independent Counsel David Barrett, cost about $23 million.
Fitzgerald's office has incurred only about $400 thousand in total expenses above the salary and benefits for the personnel working for him.
The Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky cost the tax-payer $64 million."
Liz at 8:48PM on Jul 5th 2007
10. Liz wrote: "BINGO! I am continually amazed that the first sentence out of the mouths of those who defend this president and his actions is, "Well, Bill Clinton, blah, blah, blah..."
I have said elsewhere in these blogs that if it's WRONG when Clinton did it, how is it RIGHT when Bush does it? (Okay, it's "right" only in a most unfortunate sense.)"
I think most people who say "Well Clinton did it" are writing in response to someone attacking Bush. They aren't implying that Bush is right and Clinton was wrong. They are simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of those who are doing the attacking. Why is that so hard to see?
blackdog at 11:46AM on Jul 7th 2007
11. Vote Ron Paul and tell all the other Republicans and Democrats to shove it!
Charles at 8:17AM on Jul 8th 2007
12. In response to Blackdog (10):
"I think most people who say "Well Clinton did it" are writing in response to someone attacking Bush. They aren't implying that Bush is right and Clinton was wrong. They are simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of those who are doing the attacking. Why is that so hard to see?"
Your logic is at issue. Here's what you are missing, Blackdog:
1. Criticism of Bush is not inherently an attack on Bush. Civilly done it's meant to point out flaws, provoke discussion, air disagreement, with any luck, find common ground, etc.
2. Criticism of Bush is not inherently support of Clinton.
3. Irrespective of the nature of the specific criticism of Bush, there are a shitload of people who come out swinging using certain tactics that have been honed to perfection by Karl Rove, Cheney, the Swiftboaters, conservative commentators, etc. A bunch of imbecilic blog posters try to do the same exact thing. It's transparent. Shallow. Pointless. Long on invective and insult and short on substantive discusssion.
Go back and read the blogs. It's the same pattern (with variation) over and over ad nauseum.:
Tactic 1: Insult the poster/speaker.
Tactic 2: Invoke/insult Bill Clinton and/or Hillary Clinton.
Tactic 3. Attack the manhood, womanhood, military service, etc., of the poster.
(with variation)
The first response is usually a moronic personal insult) is almost invariably followed by this well-worn knee-jerk reaction, "Well, Bill Clinton..." As if to say that anyone who criticizes Bush automatically supports Clinton and everything he did, what he stands for, what he thinks, etc.
Guess, what? Some of us actually voted for Clinton, perhaps twice, and still would not embrace and defend him the way some of these guys do Bush. Why do some of you take criticism of Bush so personally? He himself doesn't! Of course, as he says, he doesn't read the papers or" do the google."
3. The very first poster said, "For the record, Clinton was wrong too. Now what's your argument?"
Exactly! Now what's your argument? Try not to use the word Clinton, I challenge you. Take any argument: Bush should pardon Libby (commute his sentence) because...c'mon!
When posters and other people who vehemently support Bush, Cheney and the policies of this administration begin to DISCUSS THE ISSUES instead of trying discredit the messenger the rest of us will start taking you all seriously.
Until then the exchanges just sound so lame.
Liz at 6:36PM on Jul 8th 2007
13. In response to Liz (12)
You wrote: "Criticism of Bush is not inherently an attack on Bush. Civilly done it's meant to point out flaws, provoke discussion, air disagreement, with any luck, find common ground, etc."
Great, that sounds good and I wouldn't beging to disagree. But go back to your post #6. Is this civil? It comes complete with name calling "you cons", "sanctimonius apologists". You say the President of the United States is "too stooooopid . . . . and sarcastically call him "Our genius in the oval office". Sorry, I don't really consider that very thought provoking. Honestly, I consider your entire post #6 nothing more than an angry rant.
You wrote: "2. Criticism of Bush is not inherently support of Clinton."
Vice versa. Criticism of Clinton is not inherently support for Bush.
All poster #5 did was write something critical of Clinton and comment on the Libby deal. Based on that you called him names and went into a tirade listing all the far left's talking points against the Bush administration.
You wrote: "3. The very first poster said, "For the record, Clinton was wrong too. Now what's your argument? Exactly! Now what's your argument? Try not to use the word Clinton, I challenge you. Take any argument: Bush should pardon Libby (commute his sentence) because...c'mon!"
My post was not an effort to argue "any issue" regarding the current or past President. My post was to point out the hypocrisy of someone who would get all bent out of shape about the Bush/Libby deal but not the Marc Rich +- 400 other pardons. I happen to think both show just how seedy our political system has become. But, I won't complain about one and not the other.
You wrote: "When posters and other people who vehemently support Bush, Cheney and the policies of this administration begin to DISCUSS THE ISSUES instead of trying discredit the messenger the rest of us will start taking you all seriously."
Maybe if you could stick to the issue being discussed instead of trying to pick a fight with someone to feed your anger I would take you more seriously.
blackdog at 3:17PM on Jul 9th 2007
14. infinite percent of Support
yall going to make another historic landmark upon this country and worldwide publicity as never before
how about contacting me later
my email as well is triniposse072k1@yahoo.com
Anderson T. Miller at 7:34PM on Jul 9th 2007
15. the Clintons have both proven to be liars, anew....Bill lying about how he approached pardons and Hillary by trying to say the White House leaked it.Armitage leaked it and he was not part of the White House....Bill sold Pardons, pure and simple...
Rick Dalton at 2:41PM on Jul 27th 2007