CNN's Romans called George H.W. Bush "judicious with pardons," omitted Iran-Contra controversy
On the July 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, discussing President George W. Bush's decision to commute former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison term, CNN correspondent Christine Romans asserted that President George H.W. Bush "was judicious with pardons" because he granted "only 74." Romans compared the elder Bush to President Clinton, who "pardoned 396 criminals, most famously fugitive financier Marc Rich and his own brother." Romans continued: "President [George W.] Bush is being assailed by Democrats for commutation of Libby's sentence just as Clinton was criticized by conservatives for his pardon of Marc Rich." However, in contrasting George H.W. Bush's "judicious" exercise of executive clemency with Clinton and the current President Bush, Romans ignored that the elder Bush was also "criticized" and "assailed" for his decision to pardon six Reagan administration officials who were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, some of whom might have given testimony concerning Bush's own role in that operation.
On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former assistant secretary for inter-American affairs Elliott Abrams, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, and former CIA employees Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George "for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair." According to "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters":
The Iran/contra affair concerned two secret Reagan Administration policies whose operations were coordinated by National Security Council staff. The Iran operation involved efforts in 1985 and 1986 to obtain the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East through the sale of U.S. weapons to Iran, despite an embargo on such sales. The contra operations from 1984 through most of 1986 involved the secret governmental support of contra military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua, despite congressional prohibition of this support.
On December 25, 1992, The New York Times reported that at the time he was pardoned, Weinberger "was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels." The report continued: "[The] case was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran." The Times also reported: "[N]ot since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of whether the President was trying to shield officials for political purposes."
A majority of Americans opposed President Bush's decision to "issue a pardon so that Caspar Weinberger cannot be prosecuted for his role in the Iran-Contra affair," both before and after he did so. According to a November 10-11, 1992, Gallup Poll, 27 percent of respondents said that President Bush should pardon Weinberger, while 59 percent said that he should not. According to a December 28, 1992, Gallup Poll, 27 percent of respondents approved of Bush's decision to pardon Weinberger, while 54 percent disapproved.
From the July 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
ROMANS: Bush has pardoned at least 10 convicted drug offenders, in addition to counterfeiters, embezzlers, tax evaders, and moonshiners. President Clinton pardoned 396 criminals, most famously fugitive financier Marc Rich and his own brother. This president's father was judicious with pardons, only 74, but [Ronald] Reagan pardoned 393. Among the 382 Ford pardoned, one was for his predecessor, Richard Nixon.
President Bush is being assailed by Democrats for commutation of Libby's sentence just as Clinton was criticized by conservatives for his pardon of Marc Rich. And as only befits the Beltway, Scooter Libby, Kitty [Pilgrim, guest host], was once a lawyer for Marc Rich in Washington.
Actually, Ford pardoned only 381 1/2. Nixon had not been convicted of any of his indictments.
Does pardoning a non-convict even really count at all?
The only reason Nixon wasn't "convicted" was that ol' Tricky Dicky saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned rather than face the inevitability of impeachment after those IN HIS OWN PARTY realized what a crook he was.
That doesn't change the fact that Nixon obstructed justice and disgraced his office. Just like George W. Bush is doing today. But Bush doesn't have the moral backbone to do the right thing and resign.
Are the cable news talking heads so dense they can't differentiate between pardons that involve wrongdoing in THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIONS!
Go ahead Libby, you lie to cover up our treasonous acts and we'll make sure you don't have to spend a day in the pokey. And we'll get our rich buddies to donate to your defense fund so you don't have to pay for your own lawyers and then we'll buy thousands of of copies olf your upcoming book to pay off your fine.
And if I hear Marc Rich one more time in comparison to this, my head is going to explode!
Heck, if Rich is a tax cheat, he was just being pro-active. Under Bush's tax policy, he probably would have gotten a refund.
And if I hear Marc Rich one more time in comparison to this, my head is going to explode!
Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign [Wikipedia]
Smacks of a pay-off for a Pardon to any reasonable thinker.
Hope you aren't going to attempt to justify that type of behavior as ethical...
Both Bush & Clinton should be chastised, as should every President before them that granted pardons or commutations on questionable grounds.
Perhaps new guidelines should be enacted concerning executive clemency?
If your head exploded I apologize to whomever has to clean up the mess ;-)
Smacks of a pay-off for a Pardon to any reasonable thinker.
Did I say that was proper and/or ethical? But but but Clinton does NOT apply here. Libby's sentence was commuted so he could legally refuse to testify before congress and continue to cover up criminal conduct in this administration.
"Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign [Wikipedia]
Smacks of a pay-off for a Pardon to any reasonable thinker.
Hope you aren't going to attempt to justify that type of behavior as ethical...
Both Bush & Clinton should be chastised, as should every President before them that granted pardons or commutations on questionable grounds." - Jeter2
Jeter, I have significant respect for you. You continually come across as reasonable, thoughtful, and open. If the name of "Conservatism" has become tarnished by these newish highly placed pretenders, there was still a time it was worthy of respect, and I hope that day comes again. The country needs it. You, as a person, ably demonstrate the better strain of conservatism. You really do have my complete respect.
Ah, wikipedia, wikipedia. In it is writ the words of those who have the energy to write...and to put forth a point of view. However, knowledge may still be in short enough supply. Is there any guarantee the "noise machine" has never, ever contributed?
Perhaps while you and others ponder that, you might like to read (if this works) what Clinton himself had to say about that particular situation...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=ec04e1c8cb40752d&ex=1183780800
From the article: The suggestion that I granted the pardons because Mr. Rich's former wife, Denise, made political contributions and contributed to the Clinton library foundation is utterly false. There was absolutely no quid pro quo.
Is he waving his finger around again?
DarkMass,
Thank you for the link & for your kind words, appriciated both.
While Bill Clinton [a man I do respect] offered a reasonable & rational explanation for the pardon of Rich, call me still a tad skeptical in believing Denise Rich's friendship & donations didn't at least play a tipping point in his final decision.
Something else though that Clinton mentioned in his column I found more telling. And that was the advocacy for the pardon by the Israeli Government & the Jewish community including politicians...and Scooter Libby. I do remember hearing about that when the controversy was swelling around about all this, but read something on Huffington Post the other day that you & others here might find interesting--which I include further down in my post.
"and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff; (8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank."...by Bill Clinton
Let me say upfront I'm not one that gets too caught up in conspiracy theories, but now & then one does catch my interest.
Do you or anyone here know anything about an investigative journalist named Wayne Madsen? I'd never heard of him, and am just wondering if he's reliable or one of those whack jobs.
The following might be of particular interest to Nerzog [who loves a good conspiracy] or RedKing [who believes AIPAC & Israel pretty much control our politics & politicians]...I personally believe that Israel does have far too much influence on our foreign policy in the Middle East, and Israel's welfare was ONE of the reasons Bush marched into Iraq.
But I digress...
Please check out the following. I respect your opinion DarkMass & look forward to reading your take on this. Anyone else is of course welcome to check it out & respond.
From Wayne Madsen's website:
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been a long-serving intelligence agent for Israel's Mossad, according to a veteran CIA "official cover" officer who spoke to WMR on deep background. The CIA's Clandestine Service has, over the years, gathered a tremendous amount of intelligence on Libby's activities on behalf of Mossad.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_070705_libby_a_long_time_mo.htm
Jeter,
And thank you in turn.
I had no knowledge of Wayne Madsen. However, after a quick, yet thoroughly brief, investigation I have decided he seems straight up enough. Due to his background, he travels in certain circles and has some access to certain kinds of knowledge. I suspect there is much, much about his knowledge he can never pass on to the world at large. There is probably much he no longer has access to as well. Till we learn any differently, we will assume he tells some truth.
Bill Clinton is a known mortal. I would never rule out that personal matters may have at least a touch of influence over him. But he is also a canny politician, one whose every action was under the microscope of the "Right Wing Conspiracy" (or however Hillary put it) for a good long time. He was well aware of the universe he had to operate within. Any action of his would be surfaced...and more likely than not twisted into something he would barely recognize.
All I can do is illuminate my own thoughts. I justify nothing. Just random thoughts and random thoughts only.
Yes, the Israeli connection was troublesome to me. The nation-state has much to be ashamed of. That doesn't mean others in the region are perfect, far from it. But we, as a group, reward the nation of Israel, as a group, far beyond anything they seem to have actually earned. I would speculate that Bill was not unaware of this, and at least credit him with attempting to negotiate some peace.
But the scooter-boy connection I found even more troubling. If I had a dog, I wouldn't trust even a single PNACer to rough its fur. Does Libby have the intelligence connection Wayne Madsen alleges? I have no way of knowing, but it's a fit that causes no disharmony in my mind. It has the ring of some truth about it.
Perhaps Bill would pardon differently at this point in time. (Perhaps Jimmy Carter would pardon differently...grin.) Perhaps there is knowledge he now has that wasn't available then. It does seem there was some a fair amount of influence brought to bear at that point. I may not like to see that, and I don't like it, but it is no doubt a part of a President's daily life. They all have to learn to deal with it in their own specific ways. (Does Clinton wish he thought of donning a glazed look, putting his fingers in his ears, and sticking out his tongue at the nation and our history?) I do not know that Rich was actually a friend to him (an ex-wife who is a close friend may not mean the man is also a friend--could be just the opposite), but I'll grant that he was...and that perhaps that had its own influence.
However, Bill Clinton *is* a canny politician, and certainly understood any action of his wouldn't just drop into the void and disappear. I will take him at his word that Rich had not been treated quite like others--if fleeing the country was hardly to his credit. But Clinton's action wasn't a pure (undeserved) gift. He seems to have done a little legal horsetrading. Don't know if anything ever came of that, but he did manage to get Rich to sign up to the potential of consequences he otherwise might have escaped.
Hey, are you in luck! The latest column of one of my favorite writers just went up. I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but it looks like it pertains to this overall thread. You can read it along with me.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070607A.shtml
DarkMass,
Thank you for your response. My aplogies for not getting back to you sooner. I actually read your post Saturday morning but we were off to Ogunquit Maine for the day & I didn't have time to digest it & reply. Hope you check in today :-)
Also thank you for that link...very interesting article. I have to admit it put everything into perspective.
If I had to choose between Bill Clinton & George W. Bush in the catorgories of honesty, integrity & in conducting policy in this nations best welfare, Clinton would win hands down. Clinton was not perfect [what politican is?] but unlike the motley crew presently in the White House I could never have imagined his administration indulging in such overt corrupt practises. Lord knows the Republicans [the right-wingers] dug furiously for scandal and in the end could only find a Presidential B.J. ;-)
I'm convinced the Israeli "factor" could very well have played a part in both the pardons of Rich & Libby [though Clinton's reasoning held many other plausible arguments], I'm more inclined than ever to suspect self-preservation of the Bush administration was likely the key reason.
Whether the Neocons or Cheney intervened, and we'd have to be imbeciles to believe otherwise I suppose, the motives behind their push for some sort of clemency for Libby was to save their own hides. Bush, in my opinion, is a mere puppet & even if he might have balked at first, I doubt they had to twist his arm terribly hard.
I wish we could have had this discussion over a cup of coffee [or a beer] rather than over a computer, I have a feeling I could pick up a great deal of useful knowledge from you on a number of topics. Funny, my family & friends have always considered me the "political junkie" and often ask me my opinions on a variety of issues, but until I began posting here I had no idea how many others were more widely read & better informed than myself. That's one reason I enjoy this forum. I'm always up for learning more.
I do hope you'll post more often. Too many here just preach [in a rather condescending manner] & refuse to even discuss a subject. You, on the other hand are willing to consider other opinions & kick them about.
I do hope we'll meet again on other threads:-)
Like father , like son.
Doesn't it make any difference whether a person is pardoned before or after the trial?
And I love the construction that President Clinton "pardoned 396 criminals" [emphasis added] If someone isn't a criminal, why would they need a pardon?
Didn't Lincoln, the all time GREATEST Republican pardon, well, the entire Confedarcy (sp?) for their involvement in the Civil War? Man, talk about "soft on crime".
Comparing what W did to what Clinton did to what his Dad did to what Reagan et all did holds no water as an argument. You take each former President, and their pardons and or commutations, and if you want, go through them and pick them apart if you must. Just don't compare any of them to one another, because you just, can't, do, that.
this is the second time a bush has issued a pardon that stopped an investigation that could have easily led back to them. sorry, but the weinberger and libby pardons are clearly far beyond anything clinton did. they involved the inner workings of our government at the highest levels.
Amazing.
You don't think cable news can get any more ignorant - then...
How can you mention Bush 41's pardons and not mention Iran-Contra? It just boggles the mind.
For some of you younger folks, CNN actually used to be a real news organization. Flawed, sure - who isn't? But they actually reported the news and sort of knew what they were doing.
But then came the AOL deal, and the competition from Fox. And now here we are, with a reporter so ignorant of basic facts that she omits the key controversy of the elder Bush's pardons.
Wow.