Oldenburg said...
However, none of Clinton's pardons were for people involved in any scandals of his White House, but were scandals in themselves.
GW Bush, like his father, has "pardoned" (he will pardon Libby later on) person who would or could otherwise sing to prosecutors about a larger crime. That is called obstruction of justice, one of the impeachment charges against Clinton.
July 11, 2007 3:06 PM
Mike said...
Here, folks, we see a classic argument from a degenerate.
You say "none of Clinton's pardons were for people involved in any scandals of his White House"...
Sure, they were just drug dealers (the president's brother being one of them), tax evaders, embezzlers, etc. Why would you justify the pardoning of such individuals?
And since you brought up "White House scandals" let's not forget some new words the Clinton administration coined:
Lewinsky-gate, Perjury-gate, Billary's Impeachment-gate, and let's not forget Whitewater.
(And please don't make me bring up the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about the Clinton's Democratic campaign fundraising)
No scandals in Clinton's White House, huh?...
July 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Oldenburg said...
Did I say that there were no Clinton scandals? NO
Did any of your references allude to pardons based on Lewinsky, etc.? NO
The fact that Roger Clinton was addicted to drugs (I don't know that he was a drug dealer) is really besides the point and just slander. Bill Clinton didn't pardon his brother.
Do I agree with Clinton's pardons? NO
But they are not the moral equivalence of the de facto pardon of Scoter Libby.
You can slime the Clintons or me all you want, but you never addressed my actual point.
A classic argument from a degenerate. [Welcome to the blogosphere by the way, I found you via SLCSpin]
July 11, 2007 3:42 PM
Mike said...
I see.
Like you, I never said I agreed with the decision to commute anybody. Current facts seem to confirm that Libby broke the law. But the purpose of this somewhat facetious article is to call attention to the hypocrisy steaming from the left.
July 11, 2007 3:49 PM
But But! Oh that terrible logic trap of logic. Oh and by the way, there is no hypocrisy is complaining about a commutation that obstructs a criminal investigation about why a CIA agent was outed. I don't remember Bill Clinton doing that.
Posts
4 comments:
Nearly all of Clinton's pardons were for people who had served their full punishment (Marc Rich being the notable exception). GWB pardoned Scooter before he served a single day in the slammer.
Concerning my comments, you say, “There is no hypocrisy [in] complaining about a commutation that obstructs a criminal investigation about why a CIA agent was outed. I don't remember Bill Clinton doing that.”
For the record, you’ll notice I never said the hypocrisy lied in Clinton pardoning someone who committed the same actions as Libby; But rather, I call attention to the hypocrisy in that liberals call out the controversy in Libby’s pardon, as if Clinton had no controversial pardons himself.
Ah, the straw man approach.
Please find me ONE liberal and/or Democrat (including Joe Lieberman) who said that Clinton had no controversial pardons.
They might have dismissed the controversy, but they didn't deny it existed.
Since you are not dismissing the controversy over Libby's commutation, but purportedly only saying Clinton controversial pardons, I would like to point out that again there is no equivalence to Libby's with Rich's pardons, other than them both being rich and connected.
To answer your question, several acquaintances of mine (for whom the article was originally written for) have tried to argue that none of Clinton’s pardons should be deemed controversial. For that purpose, I wrote the article (for those aquaintances) addressing a few of Clinton’s most famous pardons. I never said Libby wasn’t guilty or that he shouldn’t serve hard time and my article is meant to be facetious.
I very much agree with you, however, that Libby (like Rich) is only off the hook because of his bankroll as because of who he knows. And I can assure you that I strongly believe that he (Libby) has a hand in Bush’s blockage of those who can – or can’t – testify concerning the matter.
Post a Comment