Why do conservatives compare Libby to Clinton?

Question

The judicial system convicted Libby of a crime and sentenced him to jail time. Bush then made the judicial branch's decision moot.

Clinton went through with his entire sentence - the full impeachment process. He didn't just say, "well, I'm the president, and I'm declaring this over, because it's excessive".

Why do conservatives pretend these are identical situations? Do they just not know any better?

I'm referring to conservatives on Y!A. There are probably at least a dozen questions regarding the Libby commutation and in every single one I saw a conservative invoked Clinton as an analogy. As in "if Clinton can do it then so can Bush and Libby".

Regardless of whether or not Clinton could have done anything about the impeachment proceedings, the fact remains that the two situations are nothing alike.

Answer 1

It's a universal defense for commiting crime if you're a Republican.

It's the "But Clinton" defense.

Technically, it's a logical fallacy. They claim that a predecessor got away with doing some wrong, so they're justified in doing things wrong too.

Except, Clinton got impeached for lying about a ********. The Bush administration has lied and deceived about a great many things, including reasons for going to war.

Bush's lies:
3,500 American soldiers dead, plus 10,000 wounded critically, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Clinton lies:
nobody died.

The right wingers bring up Clinton everytime they want to move the argument away from whatever sinister thing they've done.

In George Orwell's "1984," The Party blames everything on Emmanuel Goldstein. Clinton in the GOP's Emmanuel Goldstein.

Answer 2

They don't even know enough about it to care whether there's really an analogy there. They've become so predictable we could make money off them in Vegas. Point out something about Bush, or anyone corrupt from Bush's Administration and all they can do is start whining about Clinton. Same thing with Gonzales and Clinton and the firing of attorneys. They don't want to see the difference between a common practice of incoming Presidents and a political mid-term Bush cleaning of house for those who don't toe the line in the Justice Dept. Good God, if they can't understand the difference in that how can they decipher the obvious differences between Libby and Clinton. Sometimes it's like having a battle of wits with a bunch of unarmed dopes.

Answer 3

they do no longer even understand sufficient approximately it to care no rely if there is relatively an analogy there. they have grow to be so predictable shall we make funds off them in Vegas. element out something approximately Bush, or everyone corrupt from Bush's administration and all they'd do is commence whining approximately Clinton. comparable ingredient with Gonzales and Clinton and the firing of legal experts. they do no longer prefer to confirm the version between a hassle-free prepare of incoming Presidents and a political mid-term Bush cleansing of abode for people who do no longer toe the line interior the Justice Dept. sturdy God, in the event that they'd't understand the version in that how can they decipher the obtrusive alterations between Libby and Clinton. now and returned it is like having a conflict of wits with a collection of unarmed dopes.

Answer 4

It's also important to note that Clinton was found not guilty by a Republican controlled Senate while Libby was found guilty in a court presided over by a Bush appointed Republican judge.

Answer 5

They were guilty of the same crime. No, Clinton did not go through a sentence. Democrat partisans voted to not remove a felon from the Presidency, period.
Clinton should have been prosecuted after his Presidency ended.

Answer 6

Clinton was never convicted of and crime, which has to be done in the House after the Articles of Impeachment are drawn and passed by the Senate by a person named Trent Lott who was cheating on his wife while he was doing this! He was tried in the House and they did not have enough votes to impeach him. He also lost his law license!!

Scooter was charged and CONVICTED of Interference of Justice in leaking a CIA Operatives name! He probably interfered as Bush or Cheney leaked the name, which is grounds for impeachment!

Answer 7

If you are that blind with political hatred to not see the comparison, I am sorry for you, I am a moderate, who was against the Clinton Impeachment, but I can clearly see where they were coming from, they both lied under oath, Clinton's punishment was comparatively lighter than Libby's, it is completely okay to compare the two.

Answer 8

There is no difference. I am not a conservative. This double standard thing the Dem/Lib has always had going on, is why I am not a Dem/Lib anymore. You really do not understand why Clinton could not do that for himself. But , Clinton did pardon about 200 criminals friends of his and his wife, plus several members of her family. Bush 1, Clinton 200.

Answer 9

Because most of the conservatives either don't realize that Clinton was never convicted or just throw it out there because they don't have anything intelligent to say. Most just regurgitate what they heard on Fox News. Not really able to think for themselves..

Answer 10

How about this then. Clinton pardoned 16 Porta-Rican terrorists, & Sandy B. for distroying documents. Bush commuted Libbys sentence for Lying under oath, which is worse.