Bush commutes Libby's sentence

[ted]

Actually I don't think my post took EITHER side. I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the DOUBLE STANDARD I'm seeing portrayed here. I'm neither right nor left, though I admit I probably lean to the left a bit.

Uh huh. Never would have guessed.

AND YES, PARDON is within the Presidents powers, not overturning a judges rulings piecemeal. If George wants to PARDON Libby, it is in his power to do so, but what he did is outside his authority.

See LadyC's post.

And yes, I destest the policies and actions of this sitting president and his cabinet. I haven't made any comments about previous regimes because there has been no need to do so here.

Sure wouldn't want to balance what Bush does against historical Presidential precedence, would you? That wouldn't be fair, of course...

There are plenty of biased voices here that would hang a man for simply saying he was a democrat,

Not true. Many simply do not like the policies of the Democrats, much the same way you do not like the policies of Bush. I think if both sides keep things civil, then there's no reason why we cannot discuss our differences. If you feel the need only to point out Bush's perceived failures, then maybe others feel only the need to point out the failures of the Democrats.

What's the difference, besides, of course, you don't like it when Republican leaning people point out the failures of the Democrats?

And by the way, how do you know what I did (or did NOT) say about anything Clinton did? Again someone tries to cloud the real issue by referring to things they have absolutely NO CLUE about!!!

I don't know, that's why I asked.

So, did you speak out just as much against the Clinton pardons?

Have a good day.

t.

[georgesbluegirl]

I'm gonna go with Keith Olbermann on this one.

[georgesbluegirl]

Yeah, nobody's arguing that Clinton didn't use his pardon power in an immoral way (although at least Clinton's pardons weren't an issue of national security, but whatever). That's not the issue. Clinton is out of office. Bush is not. Bush is our President, so we have to be concerned with what he is doing NOW. Bringing up the immoral things that have been done before is a non sequitor, or else you seem to be saying that if one President does something bad, it becomes a precedent that's allowed to be followed by every subsequent President. By that standard, a good deal of unsavory things would be permissible.

[ted]

Yeah, nobody's arguing that Clinton didn't use his pardon power in an immoral way (although at least Clinton's pardons weren't an issue of national security, but whatever). That's not the issue. Clinton is out of office. Bush is not. Bush is our President, so we have to be concerned with what he is doing NOW. Bringing up the immoral things that have been done before is a non sequitor, or else you seem to be saying that if one President does something bad, it becomes a precedent that's allowed to be followed by every subsequent President. By that standard, a good deal of unsavory things would be permissible.

So that's how we should run the country right? If a democrat does something wrong, illegal, immoral, unjust, then a republican should be able to do something similar? I don't want to live in your version of the country.

No different at all. not that what Clinton did has any bearing on this conversation...

So, based upon the last few posts, we should never hear a thing about anything Bush has done that is perceived to bad by any of you once he's out of office, right?

I'll be looking....

t.

[georgesbluegirl]

You know, there's protocol for pardoning and commuting sentences. You'd think Bush could have at least followed that (i.e. waiting till the appeals process was over). Nope.

He couldn't risk having Libby sitting in a jail cell thinking about how the VeeP promised he'd keep him from doing time if he was a good soldier. That's all speculation and my own fantasy of course.

I also heard a theory that Bush commuted Libby's sentence rather than flat-out pardoning him because if he pardoned, Libby couldn't claim self-incrimination if he was ever called to testify against Cheney in the future. Makes you wonder...

[Scarletprayers]

What Clinton did or did not do is NOT RELEVANT.

no it never is

I guess then that when our next democrat president does something wrong we can all just excuse it by saying "well Bush did something similar"... wow, can you imagine all the things a democrat president can get away with just by using that line??!

I wonder why I never heard any republicans say, 'well Nixon did it so Clinton is off the hook'.

I hope there isn't a next democratic president myself, but God's will. As for your 2nd sentence, I can think of lots that the Dem's got away with...........................but with them they don't even try to cover it with "look what the XXXX president did" usually its, well that depends on what you call it!

[ted]

What Clinton did or did not do is NOT RELEVANT.

no it never is

I guess then that when our next democrat president does something wrong we can all just excuse it by saying "well Bush did something similar"... wow, can you imagine all the things a democrat president can get away with just by using that line??!

I wonder why I never heard any republicans say, 'well Nixon did it so Clinton is off the hook'.

Nope.

Can't go back and look at the records of others, under a standard I've seen on yours and other posts. Prior Administration's actions are now forbidden to use for reference.

You wouldn't want to break your own standard, would you?

That just wouldn't be right.

t.

[ted]

And for the record, I think Libby should have pulled his two years.

I just know that the legal action to pardon or commute on Bush's part is completely within the powers granted to a sitting President.

t.

[Celtic Warrior]

Actually I don't think my post took EITHER side. I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the DOUBLE STANDARD I'm seeing portrayed here. I'm neither right nor left, though I admit I probably lean to the left a bit.

Uh huh. Never would have guessed.

AND YES, PARDON is within the Presidents powers, not overturning a judges rulings piecemeal. If George wants to PARDON Libby, it is in his power to do so, but what he did is outside his authority.

See LadyC's post.

And yes, I destest the policies and actions of this sitting president and his cabinet. I haven't made any comments about previous regimes because there has been no need to do so here.

Sure wouldn't want to balance what Bush does against historical Presidential precedence, would you? That wouldn't be fair, of course...

There are plenty of biased voices here that would hang a man for simply saying he was a democrat,

Not true. Many simply do not like the policies of the Democrats, much the same way you do not like the policies of Bush. I think if both sides keep things civil, then there's no reason why we cannot discuss our differences. If you feel the need only to point out Bush's perceived failures, then maybe others feel only the need to point out the failures of the Democrats.

What's the difference, besides, of course, you don't like it when Republican leaning people point out the failures of the Democrats?

And by the way, how do you know what I did (or did NOT) say about anything Clinton did? Again someone tries to cloud the real issue by referring to things they have absolutely NO CLUE about!!!

I don't know, that's why I asked.

So, did you speak out just as much against the Clinton pardons?

Have a good day.

t.

Do you read what you're posting against? Obvioiusly not by your response here. I definitely said I was responding to the hypocrisy of the double standard, and that I hadn't said anything anti democrat because there were already plenty of pro republican piranha feeding on that position. I also stated that I'm middle of the road with MILD leanings toward the left. If you're going to piecemeal a posting, keep the core context with what you're tearing apart and commenting on.

Though your pattern is pretty typical of those with views based on partisanship, half truths, opinion, bias and one side viewpoints instead of the whole truth looked at from all points of view. Why did you not comment on the quote by D. Eisenhower? Afraid your RightWing position might be at risk?

No need to respond, I already know what you will say before you do. Simply put, NO solution to anything will ever come from polarization which is all this name calling and misdirection ever does. The solutions come from people who walk the middle and look at all sides, not from those who's eyes are closed to anything but ONE particular view that fits their egocentric worldview

Right Wing OR Left Wing YOU people ARE the biggest problem of all

[Celtic Warrior]

hmmm, such a cynic.

perhaps people who post opinions should check to find out whether they're kneejerk reactions or facts before stating what authority the president does or doesn't have.

But didn't you know they're all experts here, Lady C?

Including you, LadyC and the rest that are voicing opinions based on opinions, one sided information, bias, half truths, blatant falsehoods, inadequate information.

I tried to admit that I hadn't seen that particular ruling and the response I get is more frenzied feeding by those who are in the very same boat. Actually I should thank her for her snide remark and personal slam, it shows the value of her 'wisdom' and the ineptness of her position. And your response does nothing to bolster your standing as a seeker of truth and wisdom.

NO ONE knows every ruling, every decision, every fact, including you two, yet you walk the earth like you're as wise as God himself. I've read enough of your (and LadyC's) posts to know that you're operating on opinion and conjecture rather than solid facts much of the time. That opinion and bad information enters into a persons belief system is unavoidable. It's what you do about it when you find it that makes the difference between wisdom and ignorant partisanship. And taking the words of one known opinionated side as Gospel Truth is not the way to wisdom and truth. It takes looking at all sides of an issue, which neither the Conservatives, nor the Liberals do.