Libby Bruhaha
I think this sums up my feelings pretty well:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19603636/
Relevent quote:
What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.
What about all those Democrats who thought public shame was punishment enough for Clinton lying under oath, basically the position adopted today by Libby's supporters? Many of those Democrats now think Libby should go to jail for his perjury.
"There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."
4 comments:
I don’t think one can easily make comparisons between the two, or for that matter with the folks who Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. The main difference is that the person who Bush is pardoning (or commuting for now) is the same person who could incriminate him (and Cheney) for far worse illegal activities. Bush really has no choice on this one if he wants to avoid another Watergate especially if he is unsure of Libby’s loyalty.
So now that Scooter is off free as a bird, I guess he will likely do what most conservative convicted felons do best – become a radio talk show host. Better yet, maybe he can co-host a show with another well-known felon and call it “Libby and Liddy”…:).
Glad you think this is despicable, Gonzo.
I agree totally with Hunter. This was SOLELY to keep Libby from doing any bargaining with Fitzgerald.
The big difference between Bush and other presidents is that Bush had something to gain by doing this. No president - Clinton or others - has ever been able to make that shameful claim.
There's also the trial. Libby's defense was going to call Cheney and others. Then there was a call to Libby's lawyers to Cheney's office. Voila They didn't even present a defense. Why? Libby has known all along he wouldn't go to jail.
And to compare lying about sex in a non-criminal trial to lying about possible treason in the executive branch is laughable.
Don't forget Clinton was indicted (impeached) but was not found guilty. Libby was both.
I loved Maher's suggestion to Hillary Clinton - that she should run her campaign on restoring honesty and integrity to the oval office. ;-)
OK, guys, rein it in. Libby is not scot free, he's still a convicted felon. He wasn't pardoned, the sentence was commuted but the conviction holds.
As to this being a sop to prevent Libby from singing about Bush or Cheney, I don't buy it. He could still be subpoenaed by whomever to testify on any issue and he'd be under the same legal and ethical pressure to do so.
Suze, Bush *may* have had something to gain but for you to say that no other president has been able to make that "shameful claim" is ridiculous. Clinton certainly gained from the fundraisers Denise Rich sponsored for him before the Mark Rich pardon. Some of Clinton's pardons also sabotaged ongoing investigations that may or may not have implicated his administration.
I mean, c'mon, be a little objective about this.
As to Hillary, my thoughts are that she shouldn't even have mentioned this because it brought up all of the cronyism her husband was accused of and while we can debate the facts the overall affect of Bill's 400+ pardons was negative and it was inevitable that a comparison would be drawn. She should have just STFU.
On second thought, I don't want to be drawn into the particulars because I think it detracts from the point of my original cite.
The Libby commutation was cronyism. The only reason it wasn't a pardon was because, technically, it's an ongoing investigation. I fully expect a full pardon at the end of Bush'd term.
Clinton did the same damn thing if you look at who he pardoned and the reasons when he left office.
The Dems howl now as did the GOP in 2001.
Objectively, you can look at it two ways. Either it's a sordid, but acceptable, nod to the power of the presidency in both cases or it's not - in both cases.
Partisan, moral relativistic op-eds in either case are bullshit. Either what Clinton and Bush have both done are wrong or what both did are acceptable. You decide. I'm on the side of wrong on both counts.
Post a Comment