Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 25

Thread: I can't believe the Clintons...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Post I can't believe the Clintons...

    Why would either of them even comment on the Libby commutation? Usually Bill is more politically savvy than this. It gives the WH something to hit back on. Stupid....stupid.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    27

    Post Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    I think Josh Marshall had a good comeback to the false analogy with the Clinton pardons:

    I think Tony Snow and the president need some help. Snow is out there saying that President Clinton has chutzpah for criticizing President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby.

    But this really isn't that complicated.

    Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.

    It's really not that complicated.
    See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015019.php

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    I think Carrie is not so much questioning the morality of the commutation as she is wondering WHY the Clintons would lay themselves open to cries of hypocrisy by speaking out on it.
    Most informed Americans can clearly see the difference between Clinton's pardons.....and this situation. Perhaps the Clintons think the public is sufficiently disgusted with the Bush administration these days that nothing their spokespeople say will ever be taken seriously.
    Clinton had a CIA agent outed and then pardoned the person who did it in an attempt to cover up manipulated intelligence to start a war?
    I'm positive most American voters can't recall that. But they sure can imagine a corrupt and immoral Vice President who would rather be a traitor to his country by outing a CIA operative to continue a war that's based on lies. One who sould have (and possible would have) been impeached if we had a functioning, healthy and diligent Congress.
    The White House (and all the dutiful rightwing talking point outlets across the country) should be ASHAMED for trying to fool the public into believing that what Clinton did was in any way comparable to what Bush just did.
    And while we're on the subject- why not just stop the whole procedure of pardons by presidents? It's only abused these days.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    18

    Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    I have to disagree with you Carrie. I think it was a smart move for the Clintons to speak up about the issue. First of all, the national media were already asking Senator Clinton's opinion about the Libby matter even before Pres. Bush commuted Scooter's sentence. A few weeks ago, Chris Matthews asked HRC what she would think if Pres. Bush pardoned Scooter Libby. She gave a non committal answer as you thought that she should have done. He wouldn't take no for an answer and the crowd (this q&a was before union members) booed him for not letting the question go. Then later on during his Hardball show, Chris Matthews asked his panelists why HRC didn't answer the question. This went on for days--weeks ono his show as well as among the Washington pundit class.

    Hillary and Bill Clinton were in a no win situation. If they did as you suggested, the media would have kept asking and asking the question all throughout their trip to Iowa and not covered anything else. By speaking about Libby, they could address the issue on their own terms. It's better to get the pardon issue out there NOW and fully covered by the media, then the media gets bored with it and moves on. By the time the primaries come or even the general election, the media just won't cover the pardon story, if HRC's opponents either on the Democratic or Republican side bring it up. By that time, it's old news....

    Secondly, the Clintons never back away from a fight. As Mark Halperin pointed out in his book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," the Clintons believe that you run to your weaknesses, not against your weaknesses.

    http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400064...pf_rd_i=507846

    If you try to hide from your problems, then it just makes you look weak. By acting tough on this issue, despite their weakness, it demonstrates strength. You never back away from a fight. Even during his presidency, when Republicans thought that they had Pres. Clinton on the ropes, Clinton fought back, even when his actions were indefensible. Given what happened when the Swift Boat Veterans attacked Kerry, I think it's a positive whenever Dem candidates go on the attack. After all, the Clintons knew that Bill's name was going to be brought up when this pardon/commutation issue came to the forefront no matter whether he spoke out about it or not. The typical Republican defense always comes into play, "But Bill Clinton...." It was best for them to put the best face on the whole deal.....

    Third, I think the Clintons have determined that Hillary needs to differentiate herself from Barack Obama through partisanship. She is on the outs with many in the base of the party b/c of her war vote. In order to make up for it, she needs to speak up vigorously against the Bush administration whenever she can to at least dampen the anger that these voters have for her. This Libby commutation deal was a perfect opportunity for her/Bill to express the outrage that Democrats feel about the case. Besides, her opponents the Edwards and Obama people were not going to allow her to stay silent on the issue. On Monday, when Bush announced his decision, I saw many Obama and Edwards people along with the media questioning why it took HRC several hours to release a statement about the Libby commutation when it took the Edwards/Obama campaigns only a half hour/hour to release statements. All throughout the internet including dailykos and mydd on Monday night, I saw the taunts from the Edwards/Obama people, questioning why HRC was so silent and whether she/Bill supported Bush's decision since James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin contributed to Scooter Libby's defense fund. If HRC had stayed silent on the issue, Edwards definitely and maybe Obama would have made it a campaign issue.

    So, for all these reasons, I think HRC and Bill made the right decision. Based upon HRC's reaction to Chris Matthews' question over 2 weeks ago, it wasn't something that HRC was at first comfortable doing but political necessity forced both of them to speak out on the issue....
    "It's hard for your opponent to tell lies about you if your fist is in his mouth."

    --Bill Clinton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    Why don't you koolaid drinkers take a dose of common sense? Carrie is right, but before I make THAT point, let me tell you why you are wrong on the MAIN issue.

    The investigation was started based on something that was NEVER against the law...has anybody been convicted of outing Valerie?...why not?...because NO DAMN LAW was EVER broken!!! your talking about a couple (valerie and wilson) who went out on the town and were even in magazines as Joe and cia operative valerie... what the hell are you democrats smoking? and you have the unmitigated GALL to put this fruit cake's NY TIMES report above COVERT operations by the British intelligence?...WILSON'S REPORT WAS RIGGED FROM THE GIT GO.. his conclusion was set from the beginning... yea right.. Iraqi reps were there on vacation ..right?..... what fools would believe this? oh..a former ambassodor goes over there and the high ups in Nigeria tell him ALL HE WANTS TO KNOW... HOW FREAKIN' QUAINT....

    then he returns...and what does he do?..goes STRAIGHT to the NY TIMES and gives a story like he was ordered by Dick Cheney himself and says the Bush Admin is all wrong... nothing but a tea party went on when those Iraqi reps met with heads of state at Nigeria... HOW QUAINT.. Isnt' that how all CIA missions take place?... come back from your "mission" and go straight to the NY TIMES? Is that how it works?

    Fitz knew who outed valerie BEFORE he interviewed scooter... what's up with that? does anybody with a 1/2 a brain understand the significance of that? do you not know the REAL definition of a witch hunt? Yes...Scooter screwed up, but to nail this guy for 3 years in prison due to a political witchhunt?

    This whole case shows that the left was out to destroy Bush's war on terrorists.. it's all about re-gaining political power and if lies have to be thrown in to the mix so be it...

    Go ahead and enjoy your headlines Democrats..I hope you sleep well tonight.. I don't see how humanly you can do it..

    by the way..what do you think of the 15 pardons BC gave to the Puerto Rican terrorists?....oh don't forget the were all from NY... you don't think that had anything to do with hillary's upcoming senate campaign do ya? maybe cause a few hundred more deaths, but hey... gotta go for the victory ...no?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    Oh, c-mon bigeasy- Libby just "screwed up"? Really?!? But when Bill Clinton "lied" about a personal matter that only affected himself and his family (and was none of the public's business, BTW)- why, THAT was worthy of impeachment?
    It's really amazing how so many on the right are perfectly willing to just ignore the most grievous abuses of power by Republicans.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: I can't believe the Clintons...

    whose talking about monica gate?.. but if you want to bring that up, what about paula jones?..or was she like what jim carville said "trailor park trash hunting for $100 bills".. do you agree that the prosecution has the right to dig into past behaviour when someone is on trial for sexual harrassment? paula was not affected? please defend this and say at the same time you are all about women's rights in the workplace.

    there was no abuse of power regarding Libby...and you define it as "grievous"..WOW... Libby basically can kiss it as far as I'm concerned... I don't give two hoots about him because he defended Mark Ritch for 15 years and he's the one who talked Clinton into pardoning him.. Ritch cut illegal oil deals with Iran when they held U.S. hostages... Ritch, Clinton, and Libby can all Kiss my A$$....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    3,516

    Post Just for the record there is a law to protect CIA agents

    It's the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act that covers covert officers, agents, informants, sources, etc. As to Plame being covert or not, that was up to the prosecutor to prove that she was either covered by the statute or for the defense to prove she wasn't...and not tabloid media to determine it.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_421.html

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •