Originally Posted By DAR So we have no idea if Fred Thompson is going to run. Or where he stands on certain issues. But this is what causes you to lose his vote. Seems a little premature, but hey do what you want.
Originally Posted By DAR Just to throw this out there. If Bush did the "right" thing and had Libby serve his full sentence I get the feeling we'd have the same criticism.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's see, here is all the folks that President Clinton Pardoned... <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/cl intonpardon_grants.htm</a> And here is his own words... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02 /18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600</a> >>First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances. The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation. On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.<< Much more at the links....
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush is clearly acting within his powers - there's no question or doubt about it. The question is with honor and integrity - he's pardoning the very person indicted and convicted for lieing about actions of his own administration. I don't believe that a previous president has done that - although they've left it to their successors. Also, as noted above, clinton stood in front of the public and made his statement. Bush didn't do that. He issued a press release on the longest holiday weekend in recent memory, thus guaranteeing that he won't have to speak to it for a week. What a weasel.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If Bush did the "right" thing and had Libby serve his full sentence I get the feeling we'd have the same criticism." If Bush had left this alone DAR no one would be saying anything. As much as Bush hates "activist judges", he just became an "activist president".
Originally Posted By DAR Oh I'm not so sure about that. His critics would be searching for something.
Originally Posted By Elderp Too bad I am an independant, I guess I will never have a get out of jail almost free card.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Let's see, here is all the folks that President Clinton Pardoned...<< Proof positive Darkbeer doesn't read other people's posts, just does the postbot schtick. I addressed that point right from the start. But thanks for playing.
Originally Posted By jonvn yes, it's obvious he doesn't bother to read anything said here. I was just thinking this, after he posted another thing about Al Gore in one of the global warming threads, and how time and again, he does the same thing by posting junk commentary from journalists about that subject. Either not reading, or not getting the point. One of the two.
Originally Posted By DAR <<posting junk commentary from journalists about that subject. >> I'm no fan of his methods either, but just wondering if it is junk commentary because the majority of his sources come from conservative writers and publications.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Regarding President Clinton's pardons, especially those done on the last day of his term, he received criticism at the time for many of them being with people well connected politically. But I do see a few differences between those situations and what we have with Libby. For one, none of those involved crimes committed in the normal course of operating the Clinton administration. Also, if I remember correctly, most of the Clinton pardons were done after the sentences had been served and those convicted had shown that they had lead lives as good citizens after the fact. In the Libby case, the commutation was done prior to the sentence being served. It would seem to be a night-and-day difference, but maybe that's just me.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 This was the one that is most similar - no jail time and pay a fine, and the one he took the most heat for as I remember. "Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. 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. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14] "
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So far both Fred Thompson and Rudy G. have come out in favor of Bush's actions. Which says to me they're still playing to the far-right base in the near term, and hoping all this will be long forgotten by November of next year. I don't know if Bush can sink any lower in the polls - I heard one analyst say he might actually tick UP a couple of points briefly, getting back a couple of points worth of the base that he lost with the immigration thing - and he lost people like me a long time ago, but he probably also lost even more respect among moderates who might have been still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's not measured in polls, but I don't think it's insignificant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, one more thing. The same analyst who said he might get a slight bump in the polls also noted that no president has been this lowly rated for so long. Bush supporters like to point out that Truman had poll numbers as low, but that was only briefly. I forget what numbers he used exactly, but it was something like: whether you look at under 50%, under 40%, or under 30%, no president has been rated so low for so long since we've been doing this, not even Nixon.
Originally Posted By jonvn "just wondering if it is junk commentary because the majority of his sources come from conservative writers and publications." No. they are junk because they are ridiculous anti-science nonsense.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad To the original post, I weigh everything the President does against what I would do if I were me, in his shoes. I THINK I can say that I would NOT have done THIS.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Me too, DVC dad. >>But I thought you were referring to the articles in this particular topic.<< Had I not addressed that in the opening couple of posts, the old "Clinton did that too" approach might have made sense. But as usual, we get a post with no thoughts of the poster. It's beyond childish at this point.
