He's one of the Republican frontrunners, but he hasn't received much scrutiny because he hasn't formally declared yet. And the hypocrisy of invocations of the "rule of law" by the part of contemporary American "conservatives" never ceases to amaze.

If he's pardoning Scooter so he can go after the real guilty parties, like the Libby jury had wanted when they considered Libby was due a pardon.

... is really where the hypocrisy lies. Pardons, historically, are for people who have served their time and led exemplary lives for decades, or for people for whom exculpatory evidence has been dug up. The idea that a president can just wave his hand and free a convict, especially someone who was convicted for something he did on the president's behalf, is so completely undemocratic that only the Republicans could've dreamed it up.

Yes, I throw a bone to the drooling right - some of Bill Clinton's pardons were sketchy. But nothing like the Nixon pardon, the Iran-Contra pardons and any prospective Libby pardon. Those real and potential pardons really show where these guys are at.

As Veteran Novice posits in the previous thread...

The "real criminals" in the Scooter Libby case were the opposition party (Democrats) who have "criminalized politics" and put an "innocent man" (convicted by a jury of his peers) behind bars. This is the only explanation for this doublethink.

but I still find the ability to spew hypocrisy like that remarkable. Completely natural, just like breathing, for your modern neocon (or whatever the next implementation of the crooked conservative movement will be called).

Still, I am curious enough to wonder whether each endless example of this behavior is simply right-wing authoritarian compartmentalization or simple deceit. Not that it matters as the effect is the same.

Not to discount the importance of Scooter Libby's position as Assistant to the Vice President (nor, for that matter, to discount the importance of the office of the Vice President in this administration), but Libby was simultaneously an Assistant to President Bush himself. Let's not forget this, lest we eventually get to the point that Cheney finds his neck on the chopping block. The fish rots from the head down. And the head is still George W. Bush.

Fred Thompson is clearly the most dangerous of the Republican candidates if only because he could actually win. Fred Thompson is an anagram for "Stomps on Freedom". Well not really unless you spell like Bepop-o.

RickMassimo:

The pardon thing ...

... is really where the hypocrisy lies.

He has a soft spot for them-- didn't he start his Hollywood career in a movie about a pardon scandal? On Fred, I liked Wonkette's observation last month:

Despite being the only party to repeatedly get actual Hollywood actors nominated and elected, Republicans like to whine about "Hollywood values."

Obstruction of Justice was a Serious Crime, so serious in fact that a twice-elected President should be removed from office because of (never proven) allegations that he committed that crime.

Clinton did NOT commit perjury. The deposition with the Lewinsky questions was challenged by Clinton's lawyers, and the judge agreed that these questions should not be admissible, but Jones' attorneys FALSELY claimed they could prove the questions were germane. Further, Clintons lawyers argued the plaintiff's attorneys were known liars and had made false claims like this multiple times in the past, and the judge agreed with these objections as well. However, Jones' attorneys argued that being forced to provide their proof BEFORE the questions could be asked would cause too long a DELAY, so in the interest of HASTE the judge erroneously ordered Clinton to answer the questions.

The whole line of questioning was subsequently disallowed (as predicted) and the potentially perjurous questions were stricken from the record.

Jones entire case was ultimately thrown out on summary judgment as "without merit" having never proven their case. Clinton's lawyers never even staged a defense.

Going further, the supreme court decision that allowed the Jones case to go forward was gravely flawed in itself. Clearly, the President must be legally accountable to personal matters AFTER leaving office (statue of limitations laws should be suspended with regard to a sitting President) but while in office the President should be treated as the office itself, not as a man. It is ONLY the Congress, using it's impeachment powers, that should be permitted to challenge a sitting President.

Clinton did NOT commit perjury.

Who said he did? The post excerpt you cited was about obstruction of justice, not perjury. And Thompson argued that Clinton was guilty of perjury but it was not serious enough to rise to the level of impeachment. He voted to acquit on the perjury charge, but to convict on the Obstruction of Justice charge.

Blatant hypocrisy? Check.

Pre-9/11 history of criminalizing Democratic politics while pardoning Republican crimes? Check.

Public persona that permits partisans to overlook Hollywood values in favor of Reaganesque mask? Check.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. Meet your 2008 GOP Presidential Nominee: Fred "I'm Not George Bush" Thompson!

"The principles you have been defending since 1981. For Americans, these are found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

I thought Americans have been defending those principles since oh the late 1700's.

I guess not Fred's demographic target. They were under some thumb until St. Ron prevailed and freed them. And since then they added a new principle or two.

We're going to get even.

and All the mony is ours.

The principles you have been defending since 1981.

He should have said: "the principles you have been defending since 1984."

"The principles you have been defending since 1981. For Americans, these are found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

I thought Americans have been defending those principles since oh the late 1700's.

He was giving this speech to the Council for National Policy, which was founded in 1981. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy. It's really, really scary.

Fred Thompson's tributes to the importance and meaning of the rule of law are nicely phrased. Unfortunately, George W. Bush, by his lying to Congress, his repeated violations of the FISA requirements, his use of signing statements to ignore portions of laws he does not like, has undermined the rule of law more than any other president, including Clinton. By Thompson's logic, why does George Bush not deserve impeachment even more than did Clinton? If Thompson opposes the impeachment of Bush/Cheney, then all his preaching about the rule of law is so much hypocritical blather.