YA is full of questions saying "Clinton pardoned people, why can't Bush?" and "if Clinton got bashed for pardoning people, why can't we bash Bush?" I've got news for all of you - if YOU support one but not the other, either way, you're a hypocrite, but if you're consistent, you're not. So if you ask the question, why don't you start by saying how you stand on BOTH cases? That goes for every question like this.
2007-07-03 08:41:49 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Firestorm, do you even get the point of the question? BOTH sides are hypocrites if they aren't consistent.
2007-07-03 12:19:15 · update #1
nana - You get best answer for getting it and for noticing how many people don't because they don't read the question, they just spout off. Plus you flattered me.
2007-07-03 16:02:11 · update #2
I read your statement and thought that you had an excellent point. Then I began to read the answers and saw that not many people got your point. There is still name calling and the same things being brought up over and over again.
You are right and I was disappointed in Clinton when he was impeached for lying under oath just as I am disappointed in Bush for his short comings. No President has been perfect but it would be nice to see someone at least try to do their best. It is time to try to Unite this great country of ours and stop this arguing and bickering all the time.
2007-07-03 09:00:55 · answer #1 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Libby was found guilty of perjury by a jury.... So he's guilty unless and until his appeal reverses that.
Clinton pardoned some pretty bad fella's Terrorists even... Bush didn't pardon libby... he only communed his jail time he is still being punished with the fine and the probation.
It is the President's full right to pardon anyone he chooses no matter what party they are from. It was placed in the Constitution as a check and balance of the judiciary. I don't question any of either President's pardons since I know this. Some are political and some are warranted.
2007-07-03 15:51:19 · answer #2 · answered by noobienoob2000 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Libby has not been pardoned – yet. In any case, the presidential right to grant pardons is awarded in the US Constitutional.
The difference here is that the Bush Administration is only the second in US history (Reagan’s being the first) to have a high-ranking Administration member convicted of committing felony crimes from inside the Oval Office.
The Libby investigation was initiated at the request (demand) of the CIA to determine who was responsible for exposing the identity of one of their covert agents – an act of treason against the United States. Libby obstructed the judicial pursuit of the case and corrupted the integrity of the investigation, making it impossible to bring those responsible for the crime to justice.
2007-07-03 15:57:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Libby's crime, remember, was to pretend that he did not remember how the identity of a CIA agent was compromised. In other words, Libby was found to have lied to the FBI and the grand jury to protect Bush and Cheney. Bush commuted Libby's sentence because he was afraid that if Libby went to prison, Libby might start talking.
Bush has refused to commute the sentences of more than 4000 people who have applied, but he commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. Why? What made Scooter Libby more deserving. His loyalty to Bush, that's what.
Clinton never pardoned anyone to prevent them from fingering him for a crime. I do not agree with all of Clinton's pardons, but there is a difference.
2007-07-03 15:56:58 · answer #4 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You make an excellent point. Although I will say I give credit to Bush for doing what he did during his term in office and is willing to take the heat and not doing it at the last minute while running out the door at the end of his term. (comment has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with his decision).
2007-07-03 15:44:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It has nothing to do with whether the president has the power to pardon or to do less. The Constitution allows him to do so. HOWEVER, I want to know why there was not the same uproar when Clinton pardoned 140 known fellons in his last hours in office that there is now that Bush has COMMUTED (NOT pardoned) the sentence of Louis "Scooter" Libby.
Just more hypocracy from the lunatic left.
2007-07-03 15:47:13 · answer #6 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
No underlying crime was committed. Plame was not covert so the investigation was unwarranted. Clinton's pardons were scandalous. He pardoned 140 people on his last day. Some of the criminals pardoned were cocaine traffickers.
2007-07-03 15:48:06 · answer #7 · answered by only p 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree... I think Clinton was a good "policy president"... but made some just HORRIBLE decisions in other areas... like pardons and lying under oath...
but that's no excuse for Bush/Libby's actions either... it's all setting a bad example for future presidents
2007-07-03 15:46:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Libby didn't get a pardon. Bush commuted his sentence. Now he can't testify in front of congress. Bush didn't pardon Libby because that would give congress permission to sopeana him to testify against Cheney and Bush.
2007-07-03 15:45:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Libby didn't get pardoned his sentence was reduced.
Clinton and bush have been embarrassments I sure hope the next one is a better president, we deserve it..
2007-07-03 15:48:51 · answer #10 · answered by Antiliber 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋