Conservative pundits attacked Clinton for perjury and obstruction, but now defend Libby
Several conservative pundits who previously called for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and his removal from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice have recently defended the actions of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. These media figures have either supported President Bush's decision to commute the sentence, called for Bush to grant a full pardon to Libby, or said that the charges against him should never have been pursued by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Unlike Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal officers and later sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and was not indicted on criminal charges by independent counsel Robert Ray or his predecessor Kenneth Starr.
George Will
On the January 3, 1999, edition of ABC's This Week, discussing Clinton's pending impeachment trial before the Senate, syndicated columnist George Will said: "If the president's acquitted, jolly good for him. If not, we'll learn either way certain interesting things." Will continued: "I want to know which senators think that perjury is a non-impeachable offense. I want to see them stand up and tell us." Similarly, on the January 10, 1999, edition of This Week, again discussing Clinton's upcoming trial, Will said, "[W]e're going to learn a lot about the Senate. We're going to learn which senators do, and which senators do not believe that calculated, serial perjury is not a disqualification for holding the presidential office. That's going to be interesting."
By contrast, discussing the case against Libby on the March 11 edition of This Week, Will said that he was "disappointed that it ever came to a verdict." Will stipulated that Libby "may have lied -- I don't know," but continued: "[H]ow did we get here? The sense of disproportion all around. This arose out of a newspaper column. I've written 4,500 of those things. They're not that important." Will also claimed that the case "demonstrates again the tendency toward excessive zeal in these [special] counsels with one high-profile case."
William Kristol
On the November 22, 1998, edition of This Week, discussing Clinton's impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, Weekly Standard editor-in-chief William Kristol said that he believed the committee would approve articles of impeachment against Clinton, adding, "I think it's significant and I think they should." Kristol then asserted that the "most striking thing" about the first day of hearings "was the failure of a single Democratic member of that committee to say perjury is a serious matter, lying under oath is a serious matter, and then to, if they want to then argue it shouldn't be impeachable, let them make the argument." He continued:
KRISTOL: Not a single person said, tried to explain to the American people why lying under oath by the president of the United States is not an impeachable offense. I thought it was, I mean, and I say this not as a Republican, but in all honesty, the Democratic Party has had many great moments in its history. I did think November 19th, 1998, was really a day of disgrace for the Democratic Party. They simply refused to condemn perjury and refused to explain why they weren't simply telling the American people perjury's no big deal.
On the July 3 edition of NBC's Today, however, Kristol defended Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence and asserted that Fitzgerald should never have pursued the charges in the first place:
KRISTOL: Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told [syndicated columnist] Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime."
As Media Matters for America noted, although Libby did not reveal Plame's CIA identity to Novak -- who publicly disclosed it in a July 14, 2003, column -- Fitzgerald alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column.
Wesley Pruden
In the February 12, 1999, edition of his column, Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden compared the 55 senators who voted to acquit Clinton to "the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, who were determined to ignore the evidence and free the man they knew was guilty." He also asserted that the senators gave Clinton "a pass" for "lying to the grand jury," and referred to them as having "signed on for the fix."
In his July 3 column, however, Pruden praised Bush for commuting Libby's prison sentence and thereby "[r]edressing a particularly odious miscarriage of justice." Pruden excused Libby's actions, claiming that Plame "was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her." In fact, in a May 25 court filing, Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Plame "qualified" as covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, Fitzgerald attached to a May 29 filing a summary of Plame's CIA employment, which stated that "the CIA ... now publicly acknowledges that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from January 1 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during that period."
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
In a July 14, 1999, editorial, the Wall Street Journal editorial board quoted its own support of the "forced resignation" of President Richard Nixon in 1974: "It is a crime for an ordinary citizen to obstruct justice, and surely it [is] an abuse of office for a President to do so for narrow political motives." The editorial continued: "Today, we believe, essentially the same standards should apply to President Clinton." The editorial stated that "in the end, Senators should ask, knowing what we have now learned about Bill Clinton, can we trust him with our highest office?" The editorial went on to ask:
What manner of man is it who takes sexual advantage of 21-year-old interns? Who conducts sex in the Oval Office and, according to Monica Lewinsky's testimony, while discussing affairs of state on the phone with, among others, members of Congress? Who, he now admits, lied in a sworn deposition, to his colleagues, to the American people for some seven months and until confronted with DNA evidence from a semen-stained dress? Who defends his deposition lies as not perjury by telling a grand jury "it depends on what the meaning of `is' is" ? Who offers similarly cavalier answers to 81 questions from the House Judiciary Committee, and then reacts to impeachment by the House by staging a pep rally of his supporters on the White House lawn? Who now in papers filed with the Senate dismisses criticism of all this as "myths," once again giving the back of his hand to the earnest advocates of an apologize-and-censure compromise?
Speaking for ourselves, we do not expect political leaders to be well-adjusted personalities; the demands of ambition are too great. But even by this relaxed standard, Mr. Clinton's character is over the top. The center of the dysfunction is not the sex but the lies, which come so effortlessly because at any given moment he believes them.
By contrast, in a July 3 editorial on Libby's commutation, The Wall Street Journal said that "Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net" and criticized Bush for commuting Libby's sentence rather than pardoning him outright:
These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we've seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration's history. Joe Wilson's original, false accusation about pre-war intelligence metastasized into the issue of who "outed" his wife, Valerie Plame, as an intelligence officer. As the event unfolded, it fell to Mr. Libby to defend the Administration against Mr. Wilson's original charge, with little public assistance or support from the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or Stephen Hadley.
In no small part because of these profiles in non-courage, it was Mr. Libby who found himself caught up in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's hunt for the Plame leaker, which he and his masters at Justice knew from Day One to be State Department official Richard Armitage. As Mr. Fitzgerald's obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.
Tony Snow
In a December 11, 1998, column titled "Impeachment? Yes, Congress can't condone lying," then-syndicated columnist Tony Snow asserted: "We have reached a rare point of clarity in our national discourse: The House Judiciary Committee will decide this week whether it is acceptable for a president to commit perjury." He claimed that Clinton "seems to be the only person in a position of authority who thinks he didn't lie repeatedly under oath," and described the case as "straightforward." He also asserted that Clinton's legal team "seems blissfully unaware of what the courts have said about such behavior in the past" and that "[a]t this moment, at least 116 people are serving time in federal prison for perjury many for fibbing about the sort of carnal hanky-panky the president experienced in the Oval Office and its environs." He concluded: "The issue is simple: Does Congress condone lying? If so, has the concept of truth become as quaint and meaningless as Arthurian chivalry?"
However, Snow, who was named White House press secretary in April 2006, defended Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence in a July 5 USA Today op-ed. Snow claimed: "[N]o president in recent history has made more careful use of the pardoning power than George W. Bush: The president believes pardons and commutations should reflect a genuine determination to strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government." He asserted that "[i]n reviewing the case, the president chose to rectify an excessive punishment," and stated that while the president knew "he would take hits in the court of public opinion," he commuted Libby's sentence "knowing he was doing the right thing." A Media Matters review found that none of the media outlets reporting on Snow's USA Today column mentioned his previous column calling for Clinton's impeachment.
From Snow's December 11, 1998, column:
We have reached a rare point of clarity in our national discourse: The House Judiciary Committee will decide this week whether it is acceptable for a president to commit perjury.
President Clinton seems to be the only person in a position of authority who thinks he didn't lie repeatedly under oath during the course of our long national gross-out. In like manner, his legal team seems blissfully unaware of what the courts have said about such behavior in the past...
Nobody believes such nonsense, and that is why this case is critically important. Impeachment isn't a legal process. It doesn't turn on fine parsing of legal lingo. It is a political inquiry that challenges honorable men and women to express common-sense morality.
Alexander Hamilton expressed the point in The Federalist 65: The subjects of (an impeachment inquiry) are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
Lets enumerate some of the political considerations at work here. Suppose for a moment that Congress decided not to impeach or to censure as a way of avoiding tougher action. That would send a couple of immediate messages that it is acceptable under some circumstances to lie under oath, and that the president enjoys special privileges and immunities, including the luxury of evading punishment for unlawful behavior...
When members of the Judiciary Committee, and then the House itself, vote on a perjury count, the action will mark our generations place in history. There is nothing easy about the case, but one can say it at least is straightforward. It doesn't involve Byzantine land deals in Arkansas. It doesn't depend on ones knowledge of our convoluted campaign-finance statutes. It doesn't even require the White House to produce long-lost records.
The issue is simple: Does Congress condone lying? If so, has the concept of truth become as quaint and meaningless as Arthurian chivalry?
From the January 3, 1999, edition of ABC's This Week:
COKIE ROBERTS (co-host): Well, here it is 1999, and we are talking about the United States Senate trying President William Jefferson Clinton on impeachable offenses. It is something we didn't expect to be talking about at this point last year, certainly. We've given George Stephanopoulos the day off. Bill Kristol, welcome.
So, should they do this truncated thing that these senators are talking about?
WILL: No. They should have, as the Constitution stipulates, a trial. If the president's acquitted, jolly good for him. If not, we'll learn either way certain interesting things. I want to know which senators think that perjury is a non-impeachable offense. I want to see them stand up and tell us.
From the January 10, 1999, edition of ABC's This Week:
SAM DONALDSON (co-host): Pardon me for being naive. Call me Mr. Chump, but when you strip away all the rest, whether Ken Starr's a bad man, whether Linda Tripp would wiretap without permission, all of this, and you come down to did the president commit perjury, did he obstruct justice, two crimes? I'm willing to believe that the Senate really has moved forward toward a judicial way to settle that, rather than just kick the ball around and say, like my friend, Mary McGrory, used to say, Patsy Senate wringing her hands just didn't want to come to grips to with reality.
KRISTOL: I'm a fellow chump. I want to join Sam in chumpdom. I think it was a good -- I don't think it was a good result for the White House for this reason. If there had been a 55 to 45 vote at 5 p.m. Thursday, the outcome would be ordained. I mean, there would be just no chance that the Senate would go ahead and remove President Clinton. I do think the 100 to zero vote leaves the playing field open, so to speak. It leaves open the possibility, at least, that sitting as jurors, they will consider the evidence. And that is dangerous for the White House, and that is why the White House was, desperately wanted, I think, a partisan vote and kept pushing the Senate Democrats to hang tough and not compromise.
ROBERTS: What could possibly be learned that we don't already know?
WILL: Well, we're going to learn not much about the president. I think we'll learn a little something about some witnesses, perhaps. But we're going to learn a lot about the Senate. We're going to learn which senators do, and which senators do not believe that calculated, serial perjury is not a disqualification for holding the presidential office. That's going to be interesting.
From the March 11 edition of ABC's This Week:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): Scooter Libby convicted of perjury, the vice president's former chief of staff. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, said the investigation is over but the politics are not. Here to talk about that, our roundtable. I'm joined as always by George Will, Fareed Zakaria, welcome back to David Corn of The Nation magazine and Torie Clarke. And, George, let me begin with you. Vice President Cheney actually had a kind of an unusual statement. He actually made a comment on the verdict. He said he was disappointed in the verdict. Were you?
WILL: Well, I was disappointed that it ever came to a verdict. That is, Mr. Libby -- and this was a conscientious jury, certainly took their time -- may have lied. I don't know, but how did we get here? The sense of disproportion all around. This arose out of a newspaper column. I've written 4,500 of those things. They're not that important.
CLARKE: Right. This is -- no, I think this is --
WILL: One other thing. On the other hand, we have yet now redundant evidence that an independent counsel, this one, this prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, three months before he got to Washington, Armitage had in a sense solved the mystery about who had outed Mrs. Plame. This demonstrates again the tendency toward excessive zeal in these counsels with one high-profile case.
From the November 22, 1998, edition of ABC's This Week:
ROBERTS: So after all these many months, the Judiciary Committee finally has its first day of impeachment hearings. Kenneth Starr testifies for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. And now it seems like the end is very clear and it's not impeachment, Bill.
KRISTOL: But I think the House Judiciary Committee will vote to impeach the president of the United States.
ROBERTS: And is that, what does that mean?
KRISTOL: Well, it means a lot. It only happened, what, twice in U.S. history. I think it's significant and I think they should.
ROBERTS: Yes, but they do it as a straight partisan line vote, does it go down as just a totally political act?
KRISTOL: Well, it's an interesting question, which party will be blamed for partisanship. And the most striking thing about Thursday was the failure of a single Democratic member of that committee to say perjury is a serious matter, lying under oath is a serious matter, and then to, if they want to then argue it shouldn't be impeachable, let them make the argument. Not a single person said, tried to explain to the American people why lying under oath by the president of the United States is not an impeachable offense. I thought it was, I mean, and I say this not as a Republican, but in all honesty, the Democratic party has had many great moments in its history. I did think November 19th, 1998, was really a day of disgrace for the Democratic party. They simply refused to condemn perjury and refused to explain why they weren't simply telling the American people perjury's no big deal.
From the July 3 edition of NBC's Today:
MEREDITH VIEIRA (co-host): Bill, you described yesterday as a "very good moment" for the president, but he did not grant the pardon that you and many other conservatives were hoping for. So was it a "good moment" for you, or just take what you can get?
KRISTOL: No, it was a good moment. It was an act of justice. Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime. The jail sentence was way beyond what the appellate -- what the court's own advisory probation committee, which is totally non-political, recommended. The president did the right thing. I would have preferred a pardon, but I think the president did the right thing in commuting his sentence.
Kristol has never been right about anything else. Why start now?
They're raging rightwing hypocrites, devoid of honor or integrity, partisan hacks who don't even pretent to follow logic or consistency.
And they are "our media", the people who spoon-feed us THEIR opinions, so they might become OUR opinions (because these are the televised EXPERTS in all things political and legal!).
The only thing Americans can depend upon FOR SURE, is that if a rightwinger SAYS it, it's SURE to be WRONG. That is how consistent out rightwingers are at their every proclamation.
It's a good thing these guys have no pride, conscience, or shame ... because the likes of Bill Kristol would be ashamed to show their face in public, with such a record of being WRONG.
Ah, well. That's their job description: Rightwing Propagandists.
They're raging rightwing hypocrites, devoid of honor or integrity, partisan hacks who don't even pretent to follow logic or consistency.
I wonder where the hypocrosy is when you talk about Sandy Berger or Marc Reich (just to name a few). When those folk are rounded up and treated the way you want Libby treated you'll have a point, otherwise, you are just spouting off strawmen arguements and partison complaints.
AUTOPSYCHIC:
It's very simple. I believe in RULE OF LAW, and you apparently do not. If the Republicans had a problem with any Clinton action, they were not shy about engaging every tool of INVESTIGATION and the LEGAL trade to try to "get" Clinton. They did it constantly. They even tried to have him removed from office (but failed).
The GOP were in majority for SIX YEARS. If they wanted Sandy Berger or anyone else investigated, indicted, prosecuted, and punished ... there was NOTHING to stop them. They certainly had no inclination to stop THEMSELVES, because they followed up every single rumor and innuendo that came down the pike. They tried, repeatedly, vigorously, and to great expense, to get convictions of Clinton Administration officials.
So, for you to complain that someone or anyone during Clinton's time "got away with something" tells us two things: ONE, you have no faith in our system of JUSTICE, and TWO, you believe Rightwing lawyers and politicians to be utterly incompetent.
Clinton's record on THE LAW stands, as does Libby's. Clinton: NOT GUILTY. Libby; GUILTY.
I understand your frustration that your guys couldn't "GET" Clinton, and now it is clear that BUSH's has become the adminstration of war without justification, torture, corruption, and now perjury and obstruction of justice.
No matter how angry you become about whatever Sandy Berger might have done, his action was investigated, and he paid a fine. NOW, we have Libby obstructing justice, and Bush making sure he NEVER has to tell the truth. You obviously support secret, corrupt unaccountable government. That's your right as a American. It's MY right as an American to point out your hypocricy. Mission accomplished.
Wasn't Libby on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list like Marc Rich was when Bubba pardoned him?
Didn't Bush pardon a child molester as Clinton did?
wait...never mind.
Clinton never pardoned a child molestor. I can understand the confusion, though, as you probably got it from Insannity or Limpdick. Mel Reynolds was convicted and served time for bank fraud, wire fraud, and lying to the FEC. He was also convicted of having sex with an underage girl. All of these things are terrible and he was rightfully convicted. And, unlike the Foley scandal, the congressman's fellow Democrats DID NOT cover-up, conceal, or otherwise attempt to derail the investigation. They turned their backs on him, and deservedly so.
Now, for the BS you are spreading. Reynolds had his sentence commuted (not pardoned) for the fraud charges, NOT THE MOLESTATION. That conviction was NEVER PARDONED, so you are just doing what righties do best. LYING! Go peddle it somewhere else.
Perhaps you should try to read more carefully.
I never said Reynolds was pardoned for molesting a child. I just said that Clinton pardoned a child molester.
Reynolds slept with a fifteen year old child.
He was pardoned for other crimes.
Clinton saw no problem adding a guy who slept with a child to his list of pardons (or a guy on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list).
I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You said Clinton pardoned a child molestor. You guys are simply parsing words to give the FALSE impression that Clinton pardoned a child molestor. He DIDN'T. He commuted the sentence of a FRAUD. The other charges were NEVER PARDONED. That makes you a LIAR.
As for Marc Rich. He was not charged or convicted of perjury for the purpose of covering up the crimes of the President and Vice-President, as was Libby. Apples and Oranges, dude. Get over it.
JScott, Scooter Libby was one of Marc Rich's attorneys for his pardon until 2000.
Either you're unable to understand this, or you're unwilling to admit it, but once you sleep with, and go to jail for, nailing a fifteen year old girl, you are a child molester.
Just because the hillbilly didn't pardon Reynolds for his deviant sexual behavior doesn't make him any less a child molester.
But, you go right on ahead with your "he wasn't pardoned FOR child molestation so that doesn't count" nonsense, and I will continue to laugh at you.
It seems the only real "argument" you supplied was ridicule. If Clinton didn't pardon Reynolds for the crime you are making a point of mentioning, your remarks are simply gratuitous and/or irrelevant.
And let me guess, Max. Rather than pardoning a child molester (albeit for a different crime), all you've ever done is vote twice for the incompetent, treasonous, lying fool in the White House who is responsible for thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths?
Correct.
That's all I've ever done. For the other 99.9999999999999999999999999 % of my life, I sat, transfixed while staring at a picture of Antonio Benedetto Carpano, the inventor of vermouth. Why, I can't really say, as I hate martinis.
How you found this out about me is distressing.
Only in the US would someone be considered a "child molester" for sleeping with a 15 year old...
Hook, line, sinker...
Only on a liberal thread would someone try to defend an adult sleeping with a fifteen year old.
Mark Foley. Shaddap
Dennis Hastert said in his Oct. 2 press conference that he would have demanded Foley's resignation if he had not resigned.
If you need to lie to post here, talk to someone else.
No one defended Foley, save perhaps NAMBLA, an organization defended by the notoriously leftist org, the ACLU.
You honestly believe that none of the other Republicans in DC had any idea that Mark Foley serially sexually harassed underage interns for years? You think Dennis Hastert didn't KNOW it was going on? If two people in my office are even flirting with each other, everyone knows it by the next day. And a lot of people knew about Foley, and did nothing but try to hide it.
You got the party you deserve.
I have no idea who knew about it, but the point whatshisname tried feebly to make is that people on the right defended Foley.
They did not to my knowledge.
You might want to look into the life of Barney Frank before you accuse people of looking the other way when scandals erupt.
Stephen Gobie ran a bisexual prostitution ring out of Rep. Franks' apartment, and Frank laughably claimed to know nothing about it.
He was reelected easily, since many liberals have no standards, or 1000 standards, depending on your point of view.
Robert Byrd belonged to the KKK.
Ted Kennedy got Mary Jo Kopechne killed.
Barney Frank had a prostitution ring running out of his own apartment.
Each of these dirtbags is rewarded every few years with enough votes by far to keep the sad nation of Incumbistan humming along nicely.
It's pretty funny to watch you change the subject when you are asked a specific question. Do you really think no one notices?
You are always off-topic.
And Laura Bush killed her ex boyfriend. When Barney Frank found out about what his partner was doing he tossed him out and took it to the ethics comittee HIMSELF. Most people in Massachutsets dont really care about whether he is gay or not and HE was never accused of doing anything wrong himself. He has a day job. It would be easy enough to schedule things while Frank was away.
We know Cunningham and Ney wont be re-elected since THEY ARE IN PRISON.
You must be confused about the liar here. *I* don't need to lie, that's what YOU do here, in order to post. Lie, Blame Bill Clinton, and change the subject.
You and the Party of Liars, Pedophiles, and Criminals that you support can go take a long walk on a short plank, pal.
What on earth does this have to do with Bush pardoning a convicted felon who covered up the lies and deception of this administration, failing to live up to the standards he had set for pardons and excusing the right-wing pundits who felt that Clinton's lies, despite lack of conviction in the Senate, were impeachable and Bush should be praised?
It has nothing to do with it. Max is just really well trained in Limbaughism. He makes arguments that have some facts in them, some half-truths and many ommissions to make what is essentially an outright lie. Sane people try to argue the point with him, he points out something in his 'argument' that was partially true and then smugly mocks you. Meanwhile, the Truth has been long forgotten in the Fair and Balanced mess. He's really a great tool for this thread in that he's a supreme example of what people trained by the right-wing media are like.
People trained by the right wing media are the ones trained at Fox and the Washington Times, right? So that explains 1% of the media.
Since no one else will answer this:
Who are the conservatives at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC? Name them individually and be prepared to prove they are conservative, because anyone can prove who the liberals are at the major nets without any problem. Their words/views/beliefs are all online somewhere.
You don't really have a point. You just throw out lofty unsopported generalizations and speculation.
Anything anyone could come up with would be a purely subjective assessment and subject to further pointless argumentation. You obviously have a predisposed point of view and will not accept any argument that does not support your own preconceptions. What would be the point of answering such a question other than wasting our time?
You see what I mean by a great tool. One percent of the media. That's rich. You don't have to classify journalists one by one to see that the overall effect of the media has been to support right-wing causes. Is it a fluke that something like 40% of the public still thinks Saddam had something to do with 9-11 when it was never true? I remember in the lead-up to the war, the 'debate' that raged on ALL of the 24 hour news channels about it. I seem to remember CNN, MSNBC and FOX all having the same bonehead country singer with flags behind him going on about how could anyone not want to bomb Iraq, "Dont yew remember 9-11?" They were playing theme songs supporting the Bush lie. To those of us who knew the reasons for the war were a lie and that the war would be a disaster, the bias in the media was as obvious as a brick upside the head. The Tool is doing exactly what I said; minor facts, half-truths, un-truths and ommissions to create an outright lie. The media is over-all biased for liberal causes. That's a lie. Maybe he believes it? Then again, lots of these folks think myth and science are interchangeable whenever you feel like it.
Thank you being roughly the 13th MMFA poster who has refused to even try to tell me who the conservatives are at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC.
It still makes me laugh that none of you will even try.
Candy Crowley, Bob Scheiffer, Andrea Mitchell, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Brit Hume, William Safire, Bill Kristol, Armstrong Williams, George Will.
You fire back at me which is the leeeeberal, and I'll let you know the truth. Hey did Scheiffer report Bushs golf score this week on his show???
and these are just off the top of my head
Candy Crowley, Bob Scheiffer, Andrea Mitchell, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Brit Hume, William Safire, Bill Kristol, Armstrong Williams, George Will.
G. Will, yes.....for 4 minutes per week on ABC, which is all the conservatism ABC will allow every week.
Hume and Kristol work at Fox. We know Fox allows conservatives on the air, that's why liberals hate Fox.
Dobbs, yes, but he's a financial guy.
Safire, yes, for 3 minutes every few months on Meet the Press.
Armstrong Williams doesn't work at a major tv network.
You'll need to provide proof that Candy Crowley, Bob Scheiffer, Andrea Mitchell, Wolf Blitzer are conservatives, because I can post quotes all day to prove they're not.
I won't have to go back very far for most of those people. Mitchell said only a few weeks ago, about the GOP debate question on torture:
"They just played to the base. They played to, ‘Let’s torture ‘em!’ I mean, they, they didn’t say that literally, but that was the subliminal message."
Right Andrea, that's what they were saying. She's such a die-hard leftist that the evidence for her will take up a whole thread.
Good luck
well wait a second max...you've now admitted several of these guys are right wing. Who is left wing?
Armstrong Williams cant get a job at a major outlet because he took a $20,000 payoff from the Dept of Education to write a favorable article for them in print. That's what you guys call fair and balanced. Bob Schieffers known to be a golfing buddy of Bushs for YEARS.
There's three times as many that I haven't named...but where are the liberal reporters?
The food critic at the Sacramento Bee won't convince me. George Will used stolen notes from Jimmy Carters campaign to prepare Reagan for a debate--then he wrote an article about how well prepared Reagan seemed for every point Carter brought up then next day.
Journalism students would call that a breach of ethics. Republicans would call that a heroic act.
Libby is a felon. Clinton was never charged with a crime.
Because it's a silly bet. I'm aware that some right-wing tools have compiled lists of all those black-hearted liberals out there and put it out on Fox and such for all you little tools to repeat. So we can make lists of which reporters are thinking bad, liberal thoughts and donating money to charities or exhibiting signs of intelligence. And of course, we'll continue to forget the original point that the effect of the main-stream media has overwhelmingly been to spread right-wing misinformation for years. Should I have you explain the list that shows the ridiculously disproportionate number of pro-war, right wingers invited on almost every single major 'news' show in the lead up to Bush's war? People giving 'expert' opinions at a crucial time. You know as opposed to the thoughts inside the heads of some of the reporters who have been outed as sneaky liberals. You're making an argument about liberal reporters so that you don't have to argue about the actual content on the networks they work for. It's great the way you make 'liberal' itself into a character assasination by the way. It kind of ignores the fact that the self-avowed 'conservatives' who have been calling the shots have been dead-wrong about every important thing. Enjoying the war you all were so happy about? Disgusting.
Sorry about the Disgusting thing. That goes back to all the right-wingers I was arguing with back then who were just so derned gleeful about 'Irockin, rackin em up and rolling.' Really offensive behavior in a time of such professed Christianity. Maybe Max was never one of those creeps so excited about the thought of blowin up some feriners. I'm just associating you for some reason with those folks I corresponded with a few years ago. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt though.
Wait, I can't get my head around this. Scooter was Marc Rich's lawyer for several years, and Clinton pardoned Rich, then Scooty was convicted of perjury with a repub judge presiding, now it's somehow relevant that Clinton, who BTW was not convicted of anything, pardoned him but it doesn't matter that Scooty, who WAS convicted let's not forget, represented the dude who his pardoning by Clinton is somehow an egregious act, but Scoot's representation of him (as well as his conviction of perjury) is not. Sheesh, and double f'in sheesh. Orwell has probably spun so many times in his grave by now he's probably orbiting Neptune!
MAX:
Your guys HAD your time to prove wrongdoing by Clinton. You HAD majorities in the House and Senate, you HAD a record SEVEN Independent Councils, many of whom were given more "scandals" to look into besides the one they started out with. Over $300 million was spent trying to dig up evidentiary "dirt" to nail Clinton with. The efforts were enormous.
Those Clinton Pardons? Investigated extensively, House Committees and oath testimony taken and subpeona power (which wasn't needed, since Clinton cooperated). The RESULT? Same as all those other "scandals": NOTHING. No wrongdoing found.
You had it ALL. So the historic record stands.
Now we have BUSH, and he's now under investigation. How will it play out? Hard to say, because Bush IS NOT cooperating ... he will even fight the subpoenas. No matter, it will play out, and then we will see how many other crooks and liars like LIBBY will be convicted.
If you wish to answer all Bush questions with Clinton answers, that's fine. But Clinton was decided (never indicted, never convicted of any crime, only cited for civil contempt for not telling the full truth about sex in a civil case which, once DISCOVERY was done, did not have any merit, and had no business being brought in the first place.)
That's the totality of the record of YOUR GUY's attempts to "get" Clinton. If you want to keep waving that flag of utter failure by the GOP, that's fine. But HERE IN THE NOW, we have many fish on the grill from Bush's cadre, and the heat is turned up daily. The convictions will come, the corruptions exposed, regardless of how you personally "feel" about Clinton.
Those Clinton Pardons? Investigated extensively
I never thought they should've been investigated, other than the few that obviously warranted looking into:
Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, got $400,000 from two scumbags who were pardoned. When the news of the payments hit the wires, the Clintons pretended to be surprised and "demanded", lol, that Rodham give the money back.
You really think that was anything but sleazy?
The money Marc Rich's wife gave to the library fund was just as sleazy, and the Hasidic men in NY bought their pardon with votes as the NY Daily News easily proved.
Not worthy of jail time or anything like that, these are just examples of how sleazy Bill and Hillary have always been.
But we all knew that looooooong before Bill pardoned members of a terrorist group, a child molester, and a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list.
Clinton CLinton CLINTON!! So THERE!
That's a typical Max post.
Grow up, Max, and deal with the High Crimes of The CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
Umm this is about Libby.. being found guilty by a jury. Prosecuted by an investigator given the job by the Republican administration. Sentenced by another judge appointed by Republicans.
You would be very hard pressed to find anything partisan in this case. So I'm not surprised you just throw out random names of Democrats who have nothing to do with his case.
This is about the "rule of law", and even treason. YES- treason. Libby was convicted of vary serious incidents of perjury, covering up for his bosses, who without regard for our national security had a well orchestrated campaign to leak her name to the chosen few hacks on the press, destroy her career, and compromise the US operations on weapons of mass destruction. Nice stuff.
So you don't care about the "rule of law"?
Bush Jr. known in his Texas Governor days as the "Texecutioner" as having so many on "death row" put to death, showed no mercy or care there. Even when many had no defense worth anything. He even mocked the pleadings he received to "spare lives"
Yet a 30 month sentence ( well within the sentencing for the crimes libby commited) is to harsh for "Scooter" and his family. Yeah. And you don't smell the rot here?
When was Sandy Berger pardoned? I must have missed that.
Auto, there are two US Border Patrol guards serving 10 years in prison. Did they sneak illegals over? Did they take a bribe to look the other way when illegals came over the fence?
Answer: NO
They shot at an illegal drug smuggler. The US prosecutor (appointed by Bush Jr.) gave the drug smuggler immunity and the agents are now serving 10 year sentences. The illegal drug smuggler? He's also suing the US Border Patrol.
Think maybe when Bush was commuting sentences or when he pardons Libby he'll remember those US Border Patrol agents?
Maybe when you're finding old Clinton business to crow about YOU'LL remember those agents.
Bringing up the Marc Riech pardon is beginning to sound like a badly imitated parrot. It is also based on a totally false premise. Liberals did NOT approve of that pardon en masse. Liberal pundits did NOT fall over themselves on the TV in sycophantic praise mimicing of a bunch of mindless cheerleaders. Marc Shields on Leher called it "unconscionable."
And who was working hardest for the pardon?
1. Marc Riech himself.
2. His wife.
3. His lawyer :SCOOTER LIBBY!
The level of right wing hypocritic behavior is over the top. Riech got nailed for doing business with Iran? Well Cheney did the SAME THING! I don't hear Kristol calling for justice against the VP?
Bill Clinton did not committ perjury or obstruct justice. Three seperate ICs investigated these charges for 7 of his 8 years in office. None filed a single solitary charge.
Reich did not serve Clintons administration. Presidents pardon lots of ppl, but Republican presidents pardon their own adminitration officials who comitt crimes while in office.
There is no running away from this fact. Libby is a criminal, he committed crimes against the USA and his lies will not be address. He was pardoned before he even started his sentence.
Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger...again, before he served a day of his sentence. I believe the Secretary of Defense was only indicted, then Bush pardoned him.
This is routine GOPolitics. Pardon an appointed criminal who served in a very high position within your adminitration. Their lies are not only unpunished, but heralded by the right wing Christian zealots. They are Hypocrites, and there surely can be no better example! And they don't even care.
They'd vote for Libby for President if he could win.
Tell the judge who found him in contempt, Easy.
She disagrees with you.
finding someone in contempt is not the same as a conviction for perjury.
The judge was Susan Webber Wright, and the charge was CIVIL CONTEMPT.
Let me say this ONCE MORE. Bill Clinton DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. BILL CLINTON WAS NOT EVEN CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
Bite it off, chew it up...that fact has got you by the throat...in a stranglehold.
Libby was convicted on four felony counts, while holding the public trust. All you are holding is a blue dress, fifteen years later.
If you believe your dreams should have come true, and that Clinton did commit a crime, take it up with Ken Starr. He could have at least FILED a charge. What he lacked was EVIDENCE. He did not have evidence so he started sniffing a grown mans zipper.
If you want to take pride in the fact that Clinton was held in contempt by a federal judge for not telling the truth, I don't mind. It doesn't make me look like a spineless sycophant at all.
NO, THAT doesn't. That you're trying to change the subject away from the convicted felons and the corrupt politicians who love them that YOU'RE carrying water for does.
It just isn't relevant to the conversation. You can cling to your delusional mindreading and supposition about people if it makes you feel better about it. That usually seems to do the job for you.
: )
If Clinton had an unpaid parking ticket or overdue library fee, Ken Starr would have prosecuted. He DID NOT PROSECUTE. He quit, like NIFONG, and tucked tail for Pepperdine. Then they made him come back and sniff Clintons zipper. He struck gold!
150 years of GOPolitics and your claim to fame is a blue dress, slightly used. Lincoln can rest in peace now.
Libby is a convicted felon. He violated the public trust. And we didnt ask him who he had sex with, either. He was asked who told him about Valerie Plame Wilson, and he lied to cover for the VP.
Nice way to dodge every single salient point in that post.
"Uh.... CLINTON!!! Yeah, that always works."
Clinton, Clinton, CLINTON!! So there! And you really think that makes everything OK.
Laughable idiocy.
All you are is a "my team" zealot, spouting lies and desperately trying to hide the fact that "your team" are mafiosos and criminals.
Clinton hasn't been in office for 7 years.
Grow up and get off Clinton already.
Address the High Crimes of THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
Address the High Crimes of THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
name them
with evidence
That's been done about 1000 times by about a thousand different people. The fact that you refuse to see it is not my problem, it's YOURS. Just off the top of my head, but really, I don't know why I'm wasting my time on you.
Illegal Wiretapping
Lying the country into War
Torture
Outing a covert CIA agent
Obstructing Justice
Pick a feature Max. But I KNOW you won't, because you don't really CARE about the Country. You only care about YOUR TEAM, thus, you people simple REFUSE to acknowledge reality because you'll then have to admit all us disgusting libbies were RIGHT about every single thing we've said.
That, of course, you absolutely cannot do. Thus, you defend criminals and scoundrels.
Must be interesting being one of that 25%, one of the dumbest of the dumb.
Easy GHWB pardoned Weinberg before he went to trial now that is some amazin' pardon power.
Weinberger correction to above post. Sowwy!
right you are Missouri Dem. I think Cap Weinberger was indicted and pardoned soon afterwards. I'm going from memory here, but Cap was about to have to tell the truth, and put Bush41 right back "in the loop."
Nixon was pardoned before trial too, obviously.
There is a distinct GOPattern in play here. I'd be ashamed to defend this record
It's a long track record indeed. Unfortunately for you it's a problem for both parties, but since you don't have the nerve to admit that, I'll just leave it be.
I wish you and your libiot pals luck in thinking that all the dishonest people, all the ridiculous if not contemptible pardons, all the waste, and all the scandals in general are on the right. Not long after puberty, perhaps, you'll realize these things are everywhere, on both sides of the aisle.
One would think you would come up with a germaine example to backup your point. Do you have an example of Democratic Presidents that pardoned members of their administration BEFORE they went to trial or are you just kneejerking again?
By the way, if you want to compare GOP pardons vs Dem pardons, feel free, as Clinton pardoned roughly twice as many people as Bush has.
Clinton pardoned a child molester.
Clinton pardoned a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list.
Clinton pardoned members of a terrorist organization (but he really took terrorism seriously I swear!).
Libby deserved jail for lying under oath, and I wish Bush had left it alone or had the nerve to fully pardon him and explain why he did it.
Clinton deserved jail for doing the same thing and more (27 to 30 months according to federal sentencing guidelines) but he didn't spend a moment in jail either. Such is life.
It's always fascinating to me how conservatives like myself can and do admit that Libby deserved jail time, but liberals never, ever, under any circumstances admit that Clinton deserved the same thing.
As I've said, it's just so easy to be a liberal. You don't have to think or have a spine at all.
Libby lied under oath: deserves jail
Clinton lied under oath: so what?
Bush: responsible for 9/11Clinton: had nothing to do w/ 9/11
GOP: bad
Dems: good
In total, the investigations into Clinton’s issuances of executive clemency took over a year to conclude. The House Government Reform Committee didn’t release its final report until March 2002, well over a year after President Clinton left office. The Justice Department didn’t close its investigation, in which it concluded “it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody,” until June 2002.
Were you responding to me?
lol, I didn't read it, but I'm sure it took you a while honeybun.
All I said was that Libby deserved jail time, and so did Clinton, since they both lied under oath.
To what you were replying, the world may never know...
Max, Libby was convicted of a felony. Bill Clinton was the most investigated member of the federal govt that we've ever had.
There are no sentencing guidelines for ppl who aren't convicted of crimes. Must I take the time to explain to you AGAIN why Clinton didn't go to jail?
HE DIDNT EVEN GET CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
This is S I L L Y. Your contention that a man not even charged with a crime should be in prison for 30 months is ABSURD.
AndI notice you haven't named anybody on the other side of that proverbial aisle that the democratic presidents have pardoned, who served in their administrations, that were pardoned before trial.
Ken Starr ran into the same problem you have in trying to make his dream come true. He didn't have evidence, just like you dont.
Of course you didn't read it. That might shake your precious world view that YOUR TEAM is always on the side of justice and morality.
Ignore the facts all you like, mr. 25%, but don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
No they are not all on the right but you conservomorons are sure dominating them RIGHT NOW.
I always wonder how Kristol still has a job. He never has anything new or interesting to say, he just parrots others. And what he does say is, like you point out, almost always either platitudes or simply a bunch of wishful thinking that always turns out wrong.
He must have some good friends.
Maybe it was just karma or a coincidence but as I was reading this article, my son is watching "The Wizard of Oz" and the scarecrow was singing "IF I only had a brain". I think that applies too all the "pundits" and Deciderman. The irony is too much for me.
Two rightwingers name of Will
Didn't think much of Bill
When sex was the lie
They said what a bad guy
But Scooter's treason is nil
Libby was not ever accused of treason nor is iot alleged that he ever dealt improperly with any foreign interests.
On the other hand, Clinton was enmeshed with hostile foreign interests:
http://www.asianweek.com/2001_01_19/bay1_riadypays.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/31/185632.shtml
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm
Clinton was never tried for recieving these illegal campaign contributions whose ultimate sources were the Chicomms and Indonesian banking interests. Nor did the Clinton campaign ever return these funds despite pledging to do so.
Most of the witnesses to these events fled the country during the Starr investigations. Riady, Huang, Trie, Sioeng. All either took the fifth or took flight.
There is no question about guilt here. These men plead guilty. Personally, I think the fines, enormous though they were, were too lenient. If Libby deserved jail, these guys sure as H*** deserved time in a Federal Penitentiary.
In spite of all this scandal there are still muttonheads who think the Clinton investigation/impeachment was just about felatio and perjuy, both of which Clinton did as well.
If there were genuine grounds for impeaching Clinton, then why did Starr concentrate on Lewinsky?
I don't get it. All week we've had right-wingers saying that because Libby wasn't tried for the leak, then there was no crime. Yet, Clinton wasn't tried for this, while Starr investigated him for years. So by right wing logic, there was no crime committed. Right?
NL7, back in the day Libby et al would have been hanged for treason. I don't care what lame talking points or distractions you employ. Libby committed treason along with the rest of the cabal. Libby and Cheney are TRAITORS.
NL, let me tell you what date it is, July 5, 2007 just in case you didn't know the date. Junior has been in office since 2001. There have been plenty of crooks and liars during his time but for for some reason you like to live in the past Clinton days. Clinton did this or Clinton did that. Hey, what's Georgie been up to? Start any unnecessary wars? Wiretap American citizens without court approval? Just how many signing exceptions has he attached to how many bills? How is that Middle East peace thing you and Condi cooked up for the cameras? How many billions have we given Pakistan to find Osama? And by the way where the hell is Osama?
Pearlene, give NL a break.It probably listens to hours of am radio every day, and is just programmed to repeat lies about Clinton as a way to ignore the current administration.
If you want to talk about Republicans to a righty, at least have the decency to go back a few more years to Reagan.They've had a little more time to be brainwashed about him. ;0)
HBL thanks for the tip :)
Pearl can't stay on topic to save her life, though she sure does love pointing out when someone else is off topic.
I wouldn't want to discuss Clinton's pardon of a child molester and a guy on the FBI's Most Wanted list either I guess.
No, you probably wouldn't want discuss Clinton's pardon of a child molestor, because IT NEVER HAPPENED. You are LYING!
Jscott, give Max a break. He's mad because every time he posts, no matter what the topic is he has a "Clinton did this or that" reply. I explained that I/we understood that everything is Clinton's fault in his world but try to stay on topic.
Pearl, you're out of your depth as usual.
Bush is to blame for the steel tariffs.
Bush is to blame for the medicare give-away.
Bush is to blame for Harriet Miers.
Bush is to blame for disbanding an Iraqi police force that could've helped a lot.
Bush is to blame for not taking terrorism more seriously in his first 7 months.
Bush is to blame for the Dubai ports idiocy.
Bush is to blame for appointing an AG who has no clue how things work in DC.
Bush is to blame for the immigration debacle, and for leaving an arrogant twit like Chertoff with a job.
Bush is to blame for letting Ted "Sorry Bout That, Mary Jo" Kennedy write the education bill, which could've been a lot better.
I can go on and on, so don't ever try to claim I'm too partisan to see the flaws on my side of the aisle.
The day you write a list like that for the Arkansas hillbillies is the day Al Gore will debate someone, anyone, on global warming, the gutless liar. In other words, it'll never happen, sweetie.
Your posts are condescending and usually contain put downs. It appears that you really don't want a serious discussion. Many posters here are not as partisan as to ignore the faults of those politicians that represent their "side."
I haven't noticed any poster here saying that Clinton did everything right. Many of us are upset that he pushed NAFTA through, for example. But we are also aware that there is an ongoing attempt to find any excuse to demonize him and his wife, and that a lot of those attempts are disengenuous.
If we are ever going to get better leaders, we have to ourselves be better people.
Mary, I couldn't agree more.
What Max doesn't seem to understand is Clinton was not perfect in any way shape or form. I don't think a person posting thinks that Clinton was perfect. But to continually use his presidency as a standard to excuse the current administration is totally unacceptable.
Max also does not want honest discussion, hence the continued barbs.
I don't agree with Rino, Tommy, AA or Jeter sometimes but I appreciate and enjoy the effort to create honest discussions.
Thank you Max, that's the first post I've seen that you mention Junior instead of Clinton.
Mav honey when did you name become NL?
treason is the operative word here.
Libby fell on the sword and definitely had a quid pro quo arrangement.
The truth of this White House is much stranger than fiction.
I use to think Rove was the rat who went after Plame to punish Wilson. I now think it's Cheney and Bush Jr. himself.
They have trashed our Constitution, trashed our justice system, the "rule of law" only applies to those who oppose them, or those they can't be bothered by.
As Governor Bush had no problem executing criminals in Texas. He refused to stop an execution of a woman who had many pleading her case as being truly remorseful. Yet he can commute a jail sentence for a smirking rich "boy-man" called Scooter, who was found guilty on a number of counts by a jury. This was an investigation requested by the CIA itself, and had to do with our national SECURITY.
It boggles the mind. Libby knew full well what he was doing, and who he was lying for, after being told what to do.
The hypocrisy by the pundits is inexcusable. This should not be about partisan politics, this is the heart and soul of three co-equal branches of government, that are sworn to protect and represent the United States citizens.
SHAME.
Could there possibly be a clearer example of outright hypocrisy?
The guy filling in for Randi Rhodes the other day (I think he's Stacy Taylor, San Diego?) read a bunch of quotes from Delay, Hutchiinson and other Republicans that he introduced as being about the Libby trial.
I almost had to pull over, thinking the GOP was coming back to planet Earth.
Then he revealed that they were all old quotes about Bill Clinton. and I calmed down.
and truthfully, a big part of why there was not a prosecution of rove and libby on the leaking charge may be that much depends on the word of lying scum and bush apologist robert novak. the idea that armitage was known from the outset does not take into account that armitage himself said he did not realize for a long time that he was the source of the leak to novak. it all smells a little bit, because armitage's supposed innocent leak is the cover for rove and libby. look he did it first. i don't trust novak in the least to tell the truth. he's obviously such a partisan that he printed plame's identity after he was told by a contact at the cia not to do so. and novak's excuse was that he felt the warning "wasn't strong enough". he had no problem putting the disinformation campaign of the bush administration over our national security in a time when a single tip could prevent another 9-11.
Hypocritical scumbags.
mefirst- I've often thought Novak should have gone to jail for outing a CIA agent. He's slime.
Politically speaking, pundits speak politically!
The Conservatives are in big high denial. The point isn't the leak. The point is Libby lied to the FBI and he lied to the grand jury.
If Libby is such as saint as the Conservatives falsely claim why would Libby have to lie?
Libby claimed the reporters told him who Plame was. Libby stated the time the reporters was to have told him. But evidence showed that Libby knew of Plame and dicussed her 9 times prior to the times the reporters told him.
Because the evidence was beyond a shadow of a doubt Libby's defense was that he didn't remember any of the 9 conversations. All of the above Bozo's aka Conservative pundits just can't quite grasp what bull it is for someone to forget 9 conversations, let's not even mention that all the reporters denied ever having told Libby who Plame was.
Libby's own defense team also had drummed up the defense the poor little Libby was the fall guy for Rove and Cheney, only to have yanked that defense out from underneath the feet of justice at the last minute.
Are these Bozo Conservatives going to deny that Libby's defense team brought up the poor Libby was the fall guy defense?
It all stinks and smells. These Bozo Conservatives are willing to make themselves look like brown tonguers to the max. And their breath reaks of Bush, Rove and Cheney's derriere. P.U.
Did you know the shrub's administration had its own standards for consideration of pardons and commutations?
Per Andrew Sullivan on FDL.
Judge Gonzales told me three things about President Bush's policy in considering requests for commutation. First that President Bush would not consider commutation if he believed that the case had already recieved full and fair consideration by the jury and the courts who heard the case. Second, that the President would not consider the request until he had a recommendation from the justice department. Finally he said that the President would not act on any request for commutation until all judicial avenues in the case had been exhausted.
Interesrting, not a big surprise, violating his own standards. Who knew he had then written down?
Newsflash to George Will-Watergate was just a newspaper article too. The 4,500 colums you have written you now admit they weren't all that important, hell I could have told you that.
that struck me too. what an absurd thing to say. as if writing something in a column cannot have an effect.
Yeah, and "Mein Kampf" is just a bunch of words on paper. We all know that no one ever takes written words seriously.
In all fairness to Will, he may only read his own stuff, and judge the importance of journalism accordingly.
Straight up corruption. Admit it, people. This is a perfect example and there is NO WAY around this fact.
right on, and a re-post worth repeating because it speaks so clearly to the heart of the matter of Bush pardoning Libby:
This is from http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/were-anti-federalists-really-paranoid.html
"George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a bill of rights, noted that "the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt." Luther Martin, a somewhat less distinguished but extremely interesting non-signatory from Maryland (who also raised questions about the collaboration with slavery), also objected to the potential "attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution."
Also, it's really becoming lamer and lamer when Republicans cry what Clinton did wrong. Lets take a look at the fact that when Clinton was in office, well, look at where the nation was ... now compare those days to these... 2 never-ending wars... one started for NO REASON... gas prices suck, the nation is super partisan... career justice dept people being fired or not hired for being party-affiliated to the Democrats... well, I can go on and on... but seriously, Republicans, sure Clinton lied over a blow job, but can you really say that as a nation we're better off with Bushy after 6.5 years? REALLY?
Clinton didn't commit perjury.
Libby did.
Libby was convicted. Clinton was not.
Leave it to the conservatives to compare two dissimilar events.
A whole new vocabulary of words, phrases, and epithets is required to define the escalating depredations of the Bush administration and its enablers. The phenomenon is not new of seemingly intelligent people abetting and defending indefensible actions by the powerful whom they serve. In the aftermath of I. Lewis Libby’s commutation, however, we may actually have reached a point where, indeed, “words fail!” Existing political vocabulary is not sufficient to vent current levels of astonishment, indignation, disbelief, and dire concern for our increasingly endangered democracy. Here are a few suggestions for political vocabulary enrichment: to “do a louis” – to become a human shield not for a higher cause -- as in noble and just service to others or to the nation -- but purely to hide and abet harmful and hubristic acts. to “circle the dragons” – to muster robotic followers (i.e., political base, compliant press, lock-steppers and lemmings) to support and abet indefensible and unconscionable acts. the “white-out defense” – a claim of sudden, highly selective loss of recall by a person otherwise praised as organized, productive, and a peerless achiever. “elephant amnesia” – an affliction noted within the GOP herd of never remembering what’s shameful, embarrassing, or compromising in their party’s past but claiming total recall of past lapses and foibles of the Democrats. the “Clinton feint” – when barraged by press and public seeking answers to key questions about controversial Bush administration acts, invoke the name of Bill or Hillary Clinton in hope of delaying, side-stepping, or diverting the questioners. So what press/public reaction do I fear will follow this latest in a long line of Bush administration acts of misappropriation of power? I fear the yawns of people who just want to enjoy an untroubled summer . . . I fear the timidity and torpor of the legislative branch . . . I fear the boredom of reporters with slack brains and short attention-spans . . . but, worst of all, I fear reading or hearing something along this line: “Hell, can’t the constitution survive a little cutting-and-pasting?”
If there was any doubt that Conservatives only recognize hypocrisy when someone else is guilty of it, here's the proof! Talk about brazen...
Well This might be an unpopular position, but during the time of the Clinton impeachment fiasco, I felt that as the US president told a bald faced lie to the american public that it was only fitting that he be impeached. Of course I was only 16 at the time, but I still believe it is the duty of our elected officials to level with us. I still believe that today which is why I find the commutation of Libby's sentence deplorable. Bush needed to be thrown out of office a LONG TIME AGO.
If every President was impeached for "lying" to the American people, we would be on about President #300 right now.
If one of your friends (or even the President) lies about their private life, why should you care?
each one of these pundits needs to be confronted with their very own words... on camera... as in, with a transcript!
To whom it may concern: I recently heard Charles Krauthammer state similar (apparently) mis-information regarding this issue all the while Nina Totenberg and others sat voiceless with no opposition to his comments. Regardless of where one stands politically, it seem vital that we should, at least, try to discuss issues on the basis of facts. Sincerely, New member due to "news" frustration JH