- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
To those neo-con apologists still defending this administration, when will you wise-up and act not only in your best interests but those of the country? To compare the actions of this administration with any other in history is as disengenuous as it is wrong-headed. Even your hero Reagan would've cut these guys loose by now.
To Sic Semper Morannis ... I suggest you stick to the point and quit obfuscating the arguement, a typical conservative debate tactic. When you can't win the debate on it's merits, you change the subject. You may well be justified in pointing out that Marc Rich was inexcusably pardoned by Clinton if you hold that ALL pardons are inexcusable. Then your standard can be applied because all are the same.
Most here don't seek to defend Clinton's pardons. Why? Because it's not germane to the debate. However, let's be clear on one thing, Marc Rich was not part of the Clinton Administration nor did he act on it's behalf at any point; a not insignificant distinction. Libby was part of this White House and as such, whether in word or deed, directly or indirectly, his actions were that of the Administration's. As Mr. Blumenthal accurately points out, Bush's pardon is self-serving as it grants clemency to someone who's conviction was based on actions he engaged in while employed by the White House.
You speak of hypocrisy. Let's be careful how we throw that term around ... you know the admonishment of glass houses and stones. Maybe we can use the word 'inconsistent' instead.
Bush famously said he'd "deal with anyone who leaked". I guess we should have asked him to be more precise. Perhaps he meant he'd CUT a deal with anyone who leaked rather than punish anyone who leaked. Shame on us for taking The Decider at his word. I guess pardon and commute are the same thing as 'deal' in his lexicon.
I think Chris Matthews summed it up best ...
“For him (Bush) to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”
The Decider's actions are yet another in a growing list of inconsistencies and falsehoods that hold his imperial presidency above the laws of this land. He has at least been consistent about his loyalty to his own and his disdain for accountability. Is this what he meant by restoring honor and dignity to the White House?
