Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[unico]

Originally posted by struckpx


I am not saying that he didn't do it because of that. I am sure he did it b/c of Cheney. I am making the point that you cannot say that he did this for party issues, because, as mentioned, the President before him did it as well, on many more occasions. Comparing it to Clinton's wrongs, shows how easy Clinton get off actually. So, it actually exposes Clinton in a new light.

And yes, he has run a very tight line on his morals. Bailing out one of his good friends would be expected. Any President, no matter what party would have done this if they were in the same shoes, so for the Democrats to go all hoopla on Bush is quite immature.

The people making it a party issue are the ones who are supporting Bush's decision.

In case you didn't catch my timeline,
Wilson called the administration out on lying to the public about their reasons for going into Iraq
The administration then ordered to out his wife to shut him up and warn others against doing the same

Of all the responses contradicting mine, Bluer White seems to be the only one who is really willing to discuss the ISSUE at hand and not resort to generalizing and labeling.

As phillyfan said, he is not even a democrat!! Which just even moreso proves his case: here you have a nondemocrat who recognizes the corruption going on with this decision. What he was saying was that people are so committed to their parties, especially the ones that do support this administration, that they are unwilling to call them at fault for what is truly happening here.

Honestly, all this is doing is affirming what I already know. Until people can really offer some counter-responses to

1) WHY did Libby lie
2) WHY, after all the information collected, Fitzgerald says there "is a cloud over the whitehouse"
3) WHY the administration would do such a thing

I'm gonna right now and say that this is a HUGE scandal, which again is just more proof that the administration lied to the public about Iraq, and is creepy enough to put families and OUR NATIONAL SECURITY at risk just for protecting their reasonings to do so.

Since it hasn't been mentioned, I'll point out that Plame was a covert CIA who was involved in Counter-Proliferations. She had been working to ensure that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear in particular) would never be used to harm us.

As I said, not only did outing her threaten her family, but it threatened US. However, Cheney didn't care, because his main concern was not protecting US, but protecting the administration's true intentions for going into Iraq.

Why is this so deniable by some people? My guess is that those of you who ARE supporting this decision are either CIA or spouses of CIA yourself, and you're afraid of the same thing happening to you. I don't blame you.

[dazzlingamy]

And yes, he has run a very tight line on his morals. Bailing out one of his good friends would be expected. Any President, no matter what party would have done this if they were in the same shoes, so for the Democrats to go all hoopla on Bush is quite immature.

Firstly Bush and morals do NOT go together in the same sentence unless the words 'has no' are included.
Secondly the phrase 'its what a good buddy does' grates. So your buddy rapes someone and you bail him, cause we'll he's a bud and all and you can't have him going to jail etc etc.
Bush is the PRESIDENT. I mean yes, he is really everything a president shouldn't be, not wise, worldy, intelligent, understanding, open minded, strong, etc but its just another thing in a line of a million things that bush has done wrong while being in power.

[Varitek]

Originally posted by unico

Why is this so deniable by some people? My guess is that those of you who ARE supporting this decision are either CIA or spouses of CIA yourself, and you're afraid of the same thing happening to you. I don't blame you.

But seriously, because obviously there aren't that many CIA or CIA spouses on this board, why are people supporting this decision and not questioning this act? I know it's been asked upthread, but can we ignore comparisons of numbers of pardons given out by Clinton or whatever and look at this specific issue, in the context of this administration and its policies at home and abroad? Is that too much to ask, to have an on-topic, reasonable debate? You can still defend the decision, you just need to find ground to stand on within the parameters of what this debate actually is about.

[BVS]

Originally posted by struckpx


And yes, he has run a very tight line on his morals. Bailing out one of his good friends would be expected. Any President, no matter what party would have done this if they were in the same shoes, so for the Democrats to go all hoopla on Bush is quite immature.

This IS the worse excuse...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by struckpx
No, the point of bringing up Clinton is showing how other Presidents have used this method, not only a Republican Conservative like Bush. For us to make a big deal out of this when Clinton's commutal's were just as sketchy is of note. That is why we are bringing it up. If that were not the case, then we should not bring up any artifical evidence for it has nothing to do w/ this case. The amount of jail time that others have received on similar offenses don't elicit the same circumstances as this one, therefore are refutable. That is your argument.

Precedent is what makes up every facet of this country. We rely on it, live on it, and breathe it. For Clinton to condemn this and smile about it is another one of his great lies that we have become so used to. Look into the Marc Rich case or the FALN terrorist commutals and you will find that Libby's case pale's in comparison to those.

Both Clinton and Libby are very similar. That is also why this argument keeps being brought up. They both are/were high ranking officials, lied under oath and both were tried for alleged or actual crimes.

Differences: Clinton was elected President, Libby a staffer unelected by anyone but Dick Cheney. both are supposed to hold high morals, but one was officially publicly elected. Prior to this case, none of us would have been able to even know what Libby looked like.

Here's the catcher:

Scooter Libby is a convicted Felon, Bill Clinton, although many senators voted to impeach him, was not convicted of anything.

For further evidence, I refer all of you to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It reads:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So, he was convicted in a US court of law, which means his crime was an offense against the United States and the president commuted his sentence, also known as a reprieve, which the Constitution allows to.

Now, what do you not understand about this? Should I go further into Clinton's commutals? I would love to indulge in those, for they are much worse than Libby's.

I look forward to feedback. Is that not enough evidence? What else should I put?

It's not about the legality of him using it. No one is denying that he has the ABILITY as President of the United States to commute and pardon sentences.

Here is the problem that we have, that you still seem to not understand:

THIS IS A COVER UP! A COVER UP!

This has nothing to do with President Clinton! Bringing up Clinton means nothing. We are discussing the fact that Libby is covering for Cheney, who ordered a leak of classified information. Because it really isn't Libby's fault that he followed orders, Bush decided to commute him so that he doesn't have to get jailtime for PERJURY, which was only used to cover Cheney's ass. We are discussint the fact that, because he was COMMUTED (NOT PARDONED, as people were discussing earlier with Clinton), he retains his fifth amendment rights and doesn't out Cheney.

Here's how the Clinton arguments don't work:

1. His pardons were pointed out. This was not a pardon.
2. This isn't a partisan issue.

I'm not a Democrat! I have no partisan bias against President Bush. So, quit making this thing into a damn partisan issue. We're not comparing Bush to anyone. That was never the issue. We are discussing the commute used to cover up.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Varitek
I know it's been asked upthread, but can we ignore comparisons of numbers of pardons given out by Clinton or whatever and look at this specific issue, in the context of this administration and its policies at home and abroad? Is that too much to ask, to have an on-topic, reasonable debate? You can still defend the decision, you just need to find ground to stand on within the parameters of what this debate actually is about.

But think about it, is there really any defense of the decision other than straying from the topic?

[Varitek]

^

No....that's kind of what I want them to realize by actually discussing the topic...

[deep]

I don't think anyone has posted that Bush did not have the Constitutional Right to bail out Libby.

The Mark Rich pardon by Clinton was widely condemned. There were not a lot on Democrats rising to defend it.


I do remember there was quite a bit of talk, especially by Republicans to try and change the "pardon" program. To prevent the "appearance' of pardons influence by politics.

The Bush/ Cheney Administration jumped all over the Republicans in congress to squash it.

For those who want to keep comparing with Clinton, please show me where Clinton commuted a sentence for someone associated him or with his Administration.

[phillyfan26]

As well as commuting before the sentence was served at all, which was described as "unprecedented."

[struckpx]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


But think about it, is there really any defense of the decision other than straying from the topic?

It's in the Constitution. Just like we have Freedom of Speech, the President has the right to do that. As we can protest, he can issue commutals. That's the way life goes. Sorry.

[A_Wanderer]

How utterly regal.

[unico]

struckpx,

why do you think he ordered the commute?
why do you think libby lied?

p.s. responses which contain the words: democrat, friend, and clinton aren't allowed

[struckpx]

Originally posted by Varitek
^

No....that's kind of what I want them to realize by actually discussing the topic...

Well, lock the thread. No point of discussing then.

[anitram]

Originally posted by struckpx


It's in the Constitution.

How convenient that this President gets to treat the Constitution like his own personal toilet to shit all over when he wants, and invoke it when it suits him.

[struckpx]

Originally posted by unico
struckpx,

why do you think he ordered the commute?
why do you think libby lied?

p.s. responses which contain the words: democrat, friend, and clinton aren't allowed

I direct you to my last one. And if we are unwilling to provide arguments and counterarguments, than might as well stop arguing. I know its hard to believe that Clinton was a terrible president and many of you are unwilling to face that, but don't make yourselves look foolish by not accepting the different facts provided. I am proving a point that you are unwilling to look into b/c of political views that are blurred.

[struckpx]

Originally posted by anitram


How convenient that this President gets to treat the Constitution like his own personal toilet to shit all over when he wants, and invoke it when it suits him.

Yes, that is exactly why he has it.

[anitram]

Originally posted by struckpx

I know its hard to believe that Clinton was a terrible president and many of you are unwilling to face that, but don't make yourselves look foolish by not accepting the different facts provided.

I see you're from the diamond school of debate. Good to know!

[unico]

Originally posted by struckpx


I direct you to my last one. And if we are unwilling to provide arguments and counterarguments, than might as well stop arguing. I know its hard to believe that Clinton was a terrible president and many of you are unwilling to face that, but don't make yourselves look foolish by not accepting the different facts provided. I am proving a point that you are unwilling to look into b/c of political views that are blurred.

quite the contrary. i'm asking you two simple questions that you refuse to answer. who is being unwilling?

[struckpx]

Originally posted by anitram


I see you're from the diamond school of debate. Good to know!

I am from the school of reality, the one where logic is applied with reality. The President must have some authority. W/out it, he would have no power and we would not need a president. The court system would become corrupt and could rule whatever it wanted.

[struckpx]

Originally posted by unico


quite the contrary. i'm asking you two simple questions that you refuse to answer. who is being unwilling?

Everyone. You are not willing to accept any of my arguments while they are very logical. Have you even read my thread? I think you stopped reading once you saw the name Clinton.