The Audacity of Clinton
The Clintons are the scum of our political society and the sad part is that many of the liberals love them and would love to see them in power again. I knew when President Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby that the Democrats and media would be all over him for it. I knew we would see the standard double standard that we always see from the left, why should this be any different? What did catch me slightly off guard was the arrogance from the Clinton’s regarding Bush’s decision. You see a strong case could be made for commuting and/or offering a full pardon to Scooter Libby.
- Before Fitzgerald ever questioned Libby he already knew that Richard Armitage was the one who gave up her information to the press.
- She (Plame) was not a covert CIA agent at the time so how was she “outed”?
- If she was not covert and Libby did not tell the press, and if Fitzgerald already knew who did leak it why put Libby on trial? And is it possible that Libby truly forgot what was said to whom on what exact date? Could it not be an innocent mistake and not a cover up of a crime that did not happen?
These are valid questions where one could argue that 30 months in prison is too much time to serve. So how is it that the arrogant Clinton trash would have the audacity to question Bush’s decision to commute the sentence for Libby when he is guilty of far worse?
“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Are you kidding me? If I am not mistaken (and I am not) Mr. Clinton pardoned his own half brother on his last day in office! His half brother!! So who is it that has the philosophy that they can do whatever they want and that the “law is a minor obstacle”? Clinton issued 140 pardons his last day in office alone! That is 27 more that George W. Bush has granted in his whole entire term in office! Now he and his wife want to criticize Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence as if they have any moral grounds to do so? Clinton was pardoning his own family and that is ok but Bush better not pardon anyone for covering up a non-crime! Clinton also pardoned Marc Rich thanks to his former wife’s large campaign contributions to Clinton and his library. The list goes on to include a few drug dealers, several involved in fraud, tax evasion, possession of stolen goods and on and on. Take a look for yourself, Clinton pardoned all kinds of criminals including terrorists and yet he still has the audacity to question President Bush?
Now I am willing to debate the case of Libby and the questions of the Federal Sentencing guidelines as I agree that Bush’s decision brings up some valid questions about others in similar situations. If this is too harsh of a sentence for Scooter then should not the same hold true for all Americans? Here are some examples of that.
What I cannot deal with is the hypocrisy from the Clintons and the left that somehow justifies his actions but condemns those of President Bush. But then whoever claimed that the left held themselves to the same standards? If they did then Clinton would need a pardon himself for his lies under oath in the Jones case where he was was held in contempt! I know, the liberals always say that does not count because it was about sex and everyone lies about sex. So who gets to make the decisions about what it is ok to lie about? If it is ok to lie about sex in a sexual harassment case is it ok to lie about a non crime in a non crime case? Who gets to decide? Does this mean that Clarence Thomas could have lied if he needed to (although he was not the one caught in lies, it was his accuser Anita Hill that was caught lying)? Liberals will try to justify anything as we have seen evidence of all too many times.
I am just getting tired of these liberals and their double standards. I am especially tired of the Clintons, and they should be the last ones to ever question any pardon from any president!
My Groups
-
political Updated: 2 minutes ago
-
Conservative Politics Updated: 2 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
-The CIA Director (Hayden, i think his name is?) admitted Plame was covert
-Libby was convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice, and one count of making false statements... not outing a CIA agent. I know you argue that maybe he forgot, but as a whole, I think politicians (from both sides) are way to smart to be forgetting so often (or the "I didn't know" excuse.) It's the easiest way to cover your (and/or your buddy's) butt and the least believable in my mind. There needs to be much more accountability from politicians/public servants and I don't care what their politics are - they serve us, we pay their salary, so I expect honesty and accountability.
-I would not consider the Clintons liberal, regardless what anyone says (much less lumping their words in with all liberals.) Clinton's presidency highlighted the Dems attempt to become more 'centrist'... they may be more liberal than you or most Republicans, but I'd even consider Governor Arnold as "liberal" as Hilary. Anyway, it's too convenient to lump every one as liberal or conservative... the world isn't so black and white.
And, I do not speak for all "liberals", but I doubt you'd find one that agrees that the Clintons should be saying anything about pardons. It's laughable they even opened their mouth. That much I DO agree with! ;-)
For the sake of argument, if I concede the fact that Plame was covert does that change the fact that Fitzgerald knew who leaked the information before the investigation of Libby started. If that is the case, which we know it is, then would it not be easy to trip someone up on details of when a meeting took place and on what date and who said what when. I am just asking if it is plausible? Also, what was Libby covering up and who was he covering for? Richard Armitage? Why would he need to cover for him? Most importantly why if they know it was Armitage that leaked the info and if that were in fact a crime why has he not be charged with a crime?
It does not matter if you or I consider the Clintons liberal; their actions show them to be more liberal than conservative. This means that get the support of those on the far left, mostly without question. I actually had fellow Voxer lauowolf tell me that Clinton lying under oath was no big deal since it was only about sex. So all I am saying is that liberals will give Clinton the benefit of the doubt no matter what. Newsbusters.org even has a post about how the left wing media handled the Clinton Pardons compared to how they handle Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby.
As I said I am willing to debate the Scooter Libby situation and I am sure valid points can be made from both sides but there is no covering up the fact that liberals have a huge double standard when it comes to their guys versus a Republican.
Lastly, I would say that you are wrong about no liberal willing to defend Clinton, I am willing to bet there are many. It is always nice to see a liberal with well thought out and articulate comments such as yourself though. There are far too few of your kind.
How is Hillary's desire to redistribute wealth and implement socialized health care NOT liberal? It's definitely NOT centrist. Good grief...she may as well be a Marxist.
There are few people I despise more than the Clintons, Bill especially. What a despicable human being.
It appears that Fitzgerald went to the same school for prosecutors as Nifong. Hope he ends up the same way. He certainly deserves as much . Brilliant post Eric *applause*
Great post (as usual).
And you know what this really boils down too? That liberals hate Bush.
The good news for me was that I did not hear of Clinton's comment first. Instead there was a strong response from the White House and the coverage I've seen has been whether its the pot calling the kettle black.
Look, Madmouser hit the nail on the head...Clinton has the nerve to say whatever is expedient at the time no matter how hypocritical, to pass whatever judgement even if he's the chief sinner...because the mainstream press will give him a pass. If some 50 year old political enemy was caught in a fling with a 20 year old staff member, he'd be the first to condemn it and not even bat an eye.
For Bill Clinton, that actually works against him. He's so unprincpled and undisciplined that he's actually best when he is being held accountable. The first two years of his first term...to defeat George H W Bush, he had an incredible public mandate, the Dems controlled the house and senate and he ran that ship right into the ground. If he'd have faced a mid-term election, he'd have lost and if the Republicans could have come up with any candidate at all (no disrespect to Dole otherwise) he'd have lost after four years. But, then he stopped listening to his wife and started to co-opt the more popular Republican positions and highlighted the unpopular ones as all theirs...hell he/his team worked better with the Republican majority, understood the Reagan conservative base better than GW did/does!!
I also agree with you that Clinton worked better with the Republicans than Bush did. I like a lot of what Bush does but I also dislike a lot of what he does. I guess it is tough to find someone who is right on everything. I think I may vote for Ted West as a write in candidate in 2008. Problem is that Ted is probably too smart to take the job.
One of my first post on the web ( 1996) was this:
“We believe it necessary, proper and immensely satisfying to dog politicians. It’s important to howl at their hypocrisy, raise a leg against their pomposity, and bark insistently if you feel they have infringed upon your turf.
Yet, in doing so, why resort to the methods of the mongrel? Why not measure your quarry with an eye to allowing others to glimpse what has been made clear to you: that you have considered your subject from multiple points of view and that you call into question your opponent’s angle because you’ve come to appreciate where your adversary stands.
That you do so with faith in our system, a respect for those who choose public participation, and a modicum of manners when circumstance calls for a disagreement.”
You can call that naive but:
Anyone who reads, really reads politics, came away from the Novak article thinking his source may have been Richard Armitage due to the Prince of Darkness's description of his source. But that doesn't make him the initial leaker . It was the first time it got in print. The first leak to the press was from Matt Cooper from Scooter. Time held the story. Novak got the beat.
You've got to read and you gotta know the players.
It is just unknowing to suggest the MSM didn't go after Bill Clinton. The first main stream Whitewater story ran front page below the fold of the New York Times. . The Washinton Post was a friend of Clinton? No way. I not spinning anything ... you can read for yourself, it's archived. The main thing the main stream media is, is lazy. They don't read either.
Do you read "The Nation" and "The Weekly Stardard." How about the "New Republic" and the "American Spectator". God forbid " Foreign Policy", or Cobra II, or "God and Man at Yale". "Do you listen to Air America and Michael Savage? Do you op-ed both the "old gray lady" and the Wall Street Journal?. Have you read Williams Kristol's father? How about The American Conservative? How about Kristol's mom?
A book I bought and read this week was by Glenn Greenwald. The one I'll buy today is "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies".
Are we too to afraid to watch anything but Fox News or MSNBC. Yeah, in the war on terror we're all targets but we're not all walkin' point.
Serious politics is more box score than soap box...because, to paraphrase, any political party, right or left, is an organized hypocrisy that preys on the uninformed to accumulate and maintain power. You're being played by both the left and right.
Here's the tribe I belong to. I would have voted to impeach Clinton on the article pertaining to obstruction of justice. His conversation with Betty Curie. I would have let Scooter have his tooth bush day( go to jail) and fully pardoned him come this Christmas.
I'll leave you with this. A post from the 2000 general election.
It's not the shade of difference in the vote tally that colors the views of the partisans, both see red with good reason. It's the hue and cry of "moral high ground" that now tinges this dispute with danger and frightens me.
Don't be foolish. There is no moral high ground in American politics. There never has been, there never will be.
Parties are people, and politics is propaganda. Sure they gin up the base with race baiting, or what would Jesus do, but they're no disciples, they're dissemblers. Any answer alchemists.
Come on, a political party will change positions quicker than a sailor on leave.
Parties are about power, not principle, and it's delusion to think otherwise.
Florida should free you of any notion that elections are noble. It's only a necessary first step in the democratic republican process. A process designed by practical men, of worldly understandings and political propagandists of the first order.
Men so suspect of governance by righteous indignation, the divine right, they designed a system that trumps any temporal high ground with a temple of practical political provenance. We are a nation of laws, not men.
Our founders tried to make clear that governance is a motley undertaking, a real world tapestry, best measured by a previous blue print. An outline agreed upon in cool understanding, not in the heat of contest. When disputes arise in the abstract, the courts fill in the blanks. That's our history, not the dictates of heaven.
Both political parties and their apologists have, by actions and outcry, moved this recount process dangerously close to a quicksand of contempt for the concept of the rule of law. They have attempted to sink the very institutions which constitutionally make those determinations.
We have moved from political shadings of events to lies in black and white and bold. Each party is so insistent on the righteousness of their cause and the higher ground they occupy that any deviation from their divined observations allow total demonisation of any and all that disagree.
We are close to painting our nation into a political corner. A coloring book commitment to party and it's personalities is no longer enough. We are now pledge a da Vinci-like commitment to the art of acquiring power, and swear to torch the canvas if we fail.
You say this isn't a political thread just because we don't subscribe to your particular (and typical) liberal rant? Gee, how nice for us. Word of advice -- don't wander onto random blogs and then criticize the people there in the first paragraph.