It is just another "Chicken Little" syndrom of the liberals. It is an issue that won't be resolved, so thau can keep it alive for ever. The;y don't want solutions, just inflammatory issues. And the media will help them do it. How do you lie about something and cover up something that didn't happen. From all appearances this dame that was exposed was bragging about her CIA involvement and her Husband was trumpeting to the skies way before Libby got involved.
2007-07-03 06:54:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean the have to do it. People are outraged because this is one more thing Bush is doing against the will of the people. Had it been a lone incident or done at the end of his term there would only be a few minor comments but Bush has to grandstand with the in your face attitude that doesn't win him or his party any friends.
Other presidents have issued full pardons and they can do that. It is the custom at the END of one's term to make pardons or commutations of jail time. But this flies in the face of convention and is strictly for reasons of friendship, politics or both. Other pardons or commutations are based on files the president receives and his advisers recommend as the president usually doesn't know the person he is pardoning or whose sentence is being commuted.
2007-07-03 14:06:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chief, there isn't a double standard. The problem lies in the fact that Libby worked directly under Dick Cheney, so hence the connection to the white house and possible source of the leak. That is what makes pardoning Libby such a sensitive case. When Clinton pardoned people, they had no direct ties to the White House nor were we in the midst of a war. Do you see the problem now?
2007-07-03 13:49:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by michael s 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
There is no double standard.Who says noone was upset over past pardons? Maybe Libby's sentence was a little extreme and could have been reduced. Hi Profile individuals should set examples for us commoners and not be left off the hook. So both parties are equally guilty as far as I'm concerned.
2007-07-03 13:49:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Buzzy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A lot of conservatives on here call those with opposing viewpoints harsh and unfounded words like "traitor".
Lewis Libby IS a traitor. He undermined the laws and legal processes of this country to aid in concealing a treasonous act of retribution against yet ANOTHER person who didn't agree with this administration. The difference is that Joe Wilson had the facts, the gravitas, and the outlet to expose the truth, so he had to be immediately discredited and dismissed. Even if that meant violating an operative's security and blatantly disregarding the law.
This, folks, is treason. Not saying that the war is unfounded, or that the administration is short-sighted, deceitful, and corrupt. THIS.
And, yet again, the President made justice just plain disappear.
2007-07-03 13:53:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The logical falacy with your question is that we were not equally outraged that ANY president (regardless of party) would give special treatment to friends and benefactors. Just because Clinton did it doesn't make it right or good or appropriate. I would probably argue that Ford pardoning Nixon was best for the country, though.
Any president that does that is circumventing true justice and further corrupts the system.
2007-07-03 13:48:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by words_smith_4u 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have to say we need a President who will use the pardon power as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton when he put it in the Constitution. It was not designed to pardon friends and relatives (Bush - Libby and Clinton pardoning his brother). It was designed to help solve problems of national unity. This is why Washington pardoned those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion.
2007-07-03 13:49:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Stylish One 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Scooter Libby was, in fact, FOUND GUILTY. GUILTY. Not just accused, like Bill Clinton, but actually GUILTY. GUILTY of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice. Mr. Libby is a felon. President Clinton is not. Mr. Libby was sentenced to jail by a judge. President Clinton was not.
So there really is no double standard, as we are talking about apples and pumpkins.
We are upset because the law is supposed to apply to everyone equally, not just to those who aren't breaking it to protect the vice president.
2007-07-03 13:48:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The outrage is that Chicken George commuted his sentence instead of granting a full pardon!
2007-07-03 13:48:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Cherie 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because Bush let Libby free and forced Paris Hilton to serve her sentence. I really love Paris Hilton.
2007-07-03 13:44:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Darth Vader 6
·
1⤊
0⤋