Bush does the right thing, for a change

It appears that a lot of the defense of President Bush is "Bill Clinton did it, too".

 

The comparison is unavoidable. The hysteria over GWB's pardon is inexcusable by comparison.

 

There isn't a thing in the world anyone can do to change it, only huff and puff and make fools of themselves.

 

Well, it's not like President Bush can drop much further in the opinion polls, he isn't running for re-election, and the GOP is pretty much sunk in the 2008 elections regardless of what he does.

 

Yeah, it reminds me a lot of the Republicans during the Clinton administration.

I'm sure that the Republicans will return to doing it if(when) the Democrat presidential candidate assumes office on January 20, 2009.

 

Yeah, yeah, two wrongs make a right, don't they?

We should also remind ourselves that Dubya didn't seem to know the meaning of 'commutation of sentence' when it came to mentally retarded poor black kids on death row in Texas...But it's OK because Scooter's white, rich, smart and the Shrub's buddy.

Utterly unimpressed

 

I plead guilty to one out of two. Not being a Republican, I can't really speak to that one but I am a Christian.

I don't think the government is "wonderful." Even when it agrees with me, it is usually for the wrong reasons or with baggage attached.

Abuse? The president has the right of commutation or pardon to use at his discretion. There is no way to abuse it. You may disagree with his use, but he was well within his rights to do it.

Upset about it? NOt really. He was clearly wrong. He got punished.

Not really happy, but not greatly concerned. The president was within his rights to do this. The judicial process was pretty broken in this case. Bush showed his usual magnanimity by saying that Fitzgerald did a good job. I think that is far from clear. How pursuing an investigation you know the answer to is "good job" is beyond me. Once you know the answer, you stop the investigation and write your report. To do otherwise seems a breech of ethics.

How was the rule of law not honored here? The president was within his constitutional rights to do what he did. The jury verdict stands. He did not overrule the jury (contrary to the claim of one Democrat, as I recall). He simply commuted part of the sentence, something that very likely may have happened on appeal anyway.

So in the end, this was a dumb story from the beginning. There was no wrongdoing in the initial case. Libby committed perjury apparently and is paying for it.

 

That's a dumb thing to say, quite frankly.

 

Explain why.

 

Isn't it self evident?

Two completely dissimilar situations connected to try to make a political point. It's ridiculous.

 

You are correct that the president has the power to commute sentences and to grant pardons. He was within his rights to exercise that power. However, I still see it as abuse. Libby could have stayed out of prison by appealing the verdict, but Bush's precipitious action circumvented the appeals process. It is abuse because it is another example of the administration's view toward anyone or any institution (e. g., the press, the courts, the Congress) that is a position to oppose what they are doing. They see any challenge to their positions to be un-American. Therefore, this commutation is an abuse of power.

Tim Reynolds

 

Tim,
I agree with you in part and Pastor Larry in part. The President has the right to commute or pardon, apart from any other fact or circumstance. However, the fact he grants this commutation and allows two innocent border patrol agents trying to do their job, languish in prison for years, puts a bright spot light on his character and leadership ability. What is even more outrageous is that Bush has no clue how to control the borders or lead for that matter, and has an attorney general that knows as much about the law and justice as my cat.

 

I've already indicated that they are 'dissimilar' by virtue of the position in life, skin colour, wealth and connections of the two convicted criminals concerned. Now a decision based on that dissimilarity is indeed both political and ridiculous.

But that's what Dubya's done. Isn't it self-evident?

 

I find it extremely interesting that so many talk about how stupid Bush is, yet credit him with all this circumvention of our civil rights, the legal system, foreign policy etc,etc.

Just one more example of the blinding power of the Bush haters.

If he were as dumb as the left claims, he certainly would be no threat to the illustrious D controlled congress.

If he were as adept at circumventing rights & laws as the illustrious left claims, he would now be a dictator, not a lame duck president!

So come on folks, get real; at least be honest and not so dramatic in your disgust with him.

Funny thing is, a lot of people share your disappointment with the man's decisions, but the leftist claims are so utterly assinine that a rational person just has to shy away from any association with these claims.

I'm extremely disappointed in MOST of his policies, and I did vote for him. Given the choices each time, I'd do it again, but if you can find a true conservative who will run, well ---!

 

No one said Bush was ignorant. What he is though is deceitful. He pandered the for the Christian vote as a conservative and moral person and pulled every liberal trick in the book.

We are going to be held accountable for our votes one day. To say given the choice you would vote for this man again given the choice, really means, given the choice of the two parties. There were plenty of choices that reflect Christian values.

It is not a matter of hating Bush. It is a matter of righteous anger for using Christian values for political gain.

 

Incorrect. Please read the news. He had just received word that he could not stay out of prison by appealing. He could appeal in prison, but his sentence had to start.

No, it didn't. The appeals process is in progress. What Bush did did nothing to stop that.

This didn't have anything to do with a challenge to "their positions." These 'positions" are totally irrelevant in this case. Had he been doing what you suggest, he would have pardoned Libby, removing the criminal conviction and fine. He didn't do that.

Based on what? You have given three bogus reasons here. Do you have any evidence for your position?

 

So these people you are talking about were convicted of perjury in an investigation in which the information sought was already known, and were fined 250,000, 30 months in prison, and probation? Of course not. Therefore, the dissimilarity may be the reason they were treated differently. The dissimilarity certainly shows that your argument is simply wrong. It is political argument to bash someone with whom you disagree. And since you couldn't come up with real facts, you chose this.

 

Libby took one for the team. Why shouldn't he be pardoned and even promoted. The Iran Contra guys (gun runners and drug dealers) were.

 

From the Declration of Independence:

Now obviously The Bush administration, being the fine American patriots that they think they are, believe equality is defined much more differently than what some of our Founding Fathers believed in.

 

Apparently the founding fathers wrote these documents to warn us of people like the Bushes and Clintons and all their CFR, Trilateral, Skull and Bones, Federal Reserve, United Nations, foreign dictator buddies. Too bad we're too busy and comfortable to listen.