Full Version: Pardons and Promises
Long ago GWB promised to fire anyone in his administration involved in the Valerie Plame leak. That was later altered, he said he'd fire anyone "involved in a crime".
Either way, some observers have noticed a distinct lack of firings....
Bush Says He'll Fire Any Aide Who 'Committed a Crime'
Just so we're clear on the "persons-of-interest" in the case.
Link
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Either way, some observers have noticed a distinct lack of firings....
QUOTE
On Sept. 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said he was eager to find out if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Mrs. Wilson. "I want to know who it is," he said. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Just one day earlier, Mr. McClellan had stated a more categorical standard. "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration," Mr. McClellan said. "He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
Mr. Bush himself appeared to embrace a broader position on June 10, 2004, when he was asked whether he would fire anyone who had anything to do with leaking Mrs. Wilson's name.
"Yes," Mr. Bush replied, and his spokesmen have reiterated that stance repeatedly in the months since then. [...]"I think that the president was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration," Mr. McClellan said.
But Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, both Democrats, said they were disappointed in Mr. Bush's comments and what they believed was his shifting stance. "The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn't break the law," Mr. Schumer said.
Just one day earlier, Mr. McClellan had stated a more categorical standard. "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration," Mr. McClellan said. "He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
Mr. Bush himself appeared to embrace a broader position on June 10, 2004, when he was asked whether he would fire anyone who had anything to do with leaking Mrs. Wilson's name.
"Yes," Mr. Bush replied, and his spokesmen have reiterated that stance repeatedly in the months since then. [...]"I think that the president was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration," Mr. McClellan said.
But Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, both Democrats, said they were disappointed in Mr. Bush's comments and what they believed was his shifting stance. "The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn't break the law," Mr. Schumer said.
Bush Says He'll Fire Any Aide Who 'Committed a Crime'
Just so we're clear on the "persons-of-interest" in the case.
QUOTE(AP)
Mr. Bush would not directly answer a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Ms. Plame's name. "I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Mr. Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."
He also defended the decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence. "The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Mr. Bush said.[...]Several Bush administration officials revealed Ms. Plame's identity. White House political adviser Karl Rove and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the primary sources for a 2003 newspaper article outing Ms. Plame. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer also admitted telling reporters about her. And jurors apparently believed prosecutors who said Mr. Libby discussed Ms. Plame with reporters from the New York Times and Time magazine. Mr. Libby was the only one charged in the matter.
Meanwhile, the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, took issue Thursday with Mr. Bush's characterization of Mr. Libby's sentence as "excessive."
"It is fair to say the Court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could be accurately described as "excessive,'" wrote Judge Walton, a Bush appointee. He noted that the 2-1/2 year sentence was at the low end of federal sentencing guidelines.
He also defended the decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence. "The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Mr. Bush said.[...]Several Bush administration officials revealed Ms. Plame's identity. White House political adviser Karl Rove and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the primary sources for a 2003 newspaper article outing Ms. Plame. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer also admitted telling reporters about her. And jurors apparently believed prosecutors who said Mr. Libby discussed Ms. Plame with reporters from the New York Times and Time magazine. Mr. Libby was the only one charged in the matter.
Meanwhile, the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, took issue Thursday with Mr. Bush's characterization of Mr. Libby's sentence as "excessive."
"It is fair to say the Court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could be accurately described as "excessive,'" wrote Judge Walton, a Bush appointee. He noted that the 2-1/2 year sentence was at the low end of federal sentencing guidelines.
Link
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
QUOTE
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Lying is nothing unique to this President and his 7 years on office.
He will continue to lie and deceive until he and his friends are done robbing this nation of it's money blind.
He's a crook. And a wealthy Crook with crooked friends in high places..nothing will come of it...America has accepted this as its new value of human kind...the greedy and corrupt.
Great! Just what this forum needs, another Bush bashing thread. 
Great idea for a topic, Turnea. 
Ok, let's move on the questions posed for debate since we really haven't discussed anything regarding this matter before.....
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
The only person actually charged with a crime no longer works for the administration. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you, even if you are the President of the United States.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Oh, we should have Henry Waxman investigate it. Hold hearings, the whole nine yards. Maybe Congress can pass a bill forcing the President to re-hire Libby so he can fire him. That might be useful, certainly as useful as anything else Congress has done this session.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Nope. We'll most likely get more threads like this one because we really haven't fully exhausted the Valerie Plame/Wilson "leak". Good chance to beat up on Bush a little bit and that doesn't happen here very often.
Aquilla
Great idea for a topic, Turnea. Ok, let's move on the questions posed for debate since we really haven't discussed anything regarding this matter before.....
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
The only person actually charged with a crime no longer works for the administration. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you, even if you are the President of the United States.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
Oh, we should have Henry Waxman investigate it. Hold hearings, the whole nine yards. Maybe Congress can pass a bill forcing the President to re-hire Libby so he can fire him. That might be useful, certainly as useful as anything else Congress has done this session.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Nope. We'll most likely get more threads like this one because we really haven't fully exhausted the Valerie Plame/Wilson "leak". Good chance to beat up on Bush a little bit and that doesn't happen here very often.
Aquilla
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
He has lied completely- as noted by Turnea. Rove still works for the prez. Straight up lie.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
I am hoping the American public wises up a bit, and they in fact seem to be doing some to some small degree. Though the "I told you so" folks, like myself, um, told you so, a fair number of poeple are starting to cast out the old guard of the republican party, and it's leadership. I am hoping for a total trouncing over issues like this in 08, and a revitalization of the republican party along the old "less goverment, more accountability" lines. I am hoping this kills the idealogy of the "imperial president". I am really hoping that the consequence is perhaps laws and even amendments further limiting the executive branch of goverment. The total craptacular dog and pony show may hopefully lead to the consequence of some of the powers of the executive branch being diminished. I would like to see the ability to make war taken away completely, without some serious hoops to jump through anyway, and his ability to spy on poeple taken away completely, and his ability to withhold evidence from congress taken away forever.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
No where near, and the opposition should NEVER let it die, and in fact, the next pres should take it up further and seek to prosecute them for treason.
It has run it's course, in the presidents feeble mind, similar to "mission accomplished" ended the Iraq war
He has lied completely- as noted by Turnea. Rove still works for the prez. Straight up lie.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
I am hoping the American public wises up a bit, and they in fact seem to be doing some to some small degree. Though the "I told you so" folks, like myself, um, told you so, a fair number of poeple are starting to cast out the old guard of the republican party, and it's leadership. I am hoping for a total trouncing over issues like this in 08, and a revitalization of the republican party along the old "less goverment, more accountability" lines. I am hoping this kills the idealogy of the "imperial president". I am really hoping that the consequence is perhaps laws and even amendments further limiting the executive branch of goverment. The total craptacular dog and pony show may hopefully lead to the consequence of some of the powers of the executive branch being diminished. I would like to see the ability to make war taken away completely, without some serious hoops to jump through anyway, and his ability to spy on poeple taken away completely, and his ability to withhold evidence from congress taken away forever.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
No where near, and the opposition should NEVER let it die, and in fact, the next pres should take it up further and seek to prosecute them for treason.
It has run it's course, in the presidents feeble mind, similar to "mission accomplished" ended the Iraq war
If you'll search back through board history I've defended President Bush on several occasions.
When Terry McAuliffe lied and said he never served in the military. I started a thread to call him on it.
When they were beating him up for announcing the end of "Major Combat Operations" I repeatedly explained what that meant.
When he called on states to be "either with us or against" I cautioned against running away with a political interpretation or every word the man says.
...but there are words that describe this whole Plame Affair.
I'm going to go with
"Unmitigated Gall"
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
Repeatedly. Brazenly.
In lying about the reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (because it was by no objective measure a harsh one).
In commuting the sentence in the first place.
In not firing the other officials involved.
When Terry McAuliffe lied and said he never served in the military. I started a thread to call him on it.
When they were beating him up for announcing the end of "Major Combat Operations" I repeatedly explained what that meant.
When he called on states to be "either with us or against" I cautioned against running away with a political interpretation or every word the man says.
...but there are words that describe this whole Plame Affair.
I'm going to go with
"Unmitigated Gall"
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
Repeatedly. Brazenly.
In lying about the reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (because it was by no objective measure a harsh one).
In commuting the sentence in the first place.
In not firing the other officials involved.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 02:44 PM) 
If you'll search back through board history I've defended President Bush on several occasions.
When Terry McAuliffe lied and said he never served in the military. I started a thread to call him on it.
When they were beating him up for announcing the end of "Major Combat Operations" I repeatedly explained what that meant.
When he called on states to be "either with us or against" I cautioned against running away with a political interpretation or every word the man says.
...but there are words that describe this whole Plame Affair.
I'm going to go with
"Unmitigated Gall"
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
Repeatedly. Brazenly.
In lying about the reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (because it was by no objective measure a harsh one).
In commuting the sentence in the first place.
In not firing the other officials involved.
When Terry McAuliffe lied and said he never served in the military. I started a thread to call him on it.
When they were beating him up for announcing the end of "Major Combat Operations" I repeatedly explained what that meant.
When he called on states to be "either with us or against" I cautioned against running away with a political interpretation or every word the man says.
...but there are words that describe this whole Plame Affair.
I'm going to go with
"Unmitigated Gall"
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
Repeatedly. Brazenly.
In lying about the reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (because it was by no objective measure a harsh one).
In commuting the sentence in the first place.
In not firing the other officials involved.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've been a real trooper.
Read the headline of the article you cited. For that matter, read what YOU wrote for the link to it. QUOTE
Bush Says He'll Fire Any Aide Who 'Committed a Crime'
So, what "other officials involved" committed a crime? What was their crime and why weren't they charged? Fitzgerald has proven he can set up and indict a ham sandwich, so what happened with all these other "officials involved"?
Aquilla
Just one day earlier, Mr. McClellan had stated a more categorical standard. "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration," Mr. McClellan said. "He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
I guess it was Mr McClellan that was lying then Aquilla?
I guess it was Mr McClellan that was lying then Aquilla?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 15 2007, 05:38 PM)
Just one day earlier, Mr. McClellan had stated a more categorical standard. "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration," Mr. McClellan said. "He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
I guess it was Mr McClellan that was lying then Aquilla?
I guess it was Mr McClellan that was lying then Aquilla?
Involved in what? Turnea's link said "a crime". Perhaps at the time the President and McClellan thought there might be a crime involved in this so-called "leak", but guess what? There wasn't. How do I know this? Welllll... Maybe because despite knowing who did leak the name, the federal special prosecutor never even charged anyone, NOBODY with that crime. There is no there there. As much as I know you would like there to be one, there ain't no crime going on here. The only crime charged in this case was something that happened after the fact that was a set-up and we can re-hash that until the cows come home. And, we probably will.....
Aquilla
I think you keep looking for the conviction- you won't get it- BTW- do you hold this standard true for everyone? For instance- since Clinton was never CONVICTED of lying- that means he didn't lie? OJ was declared NOt guilty- do you believe, that OJ didn't do it? Al Capone was NEVER convicted of anything but tax evasion- never could get him on anything else- do you think he had nothing to do with the St Valentine's day massacre?
I am just wondering if you only hold the GW regime to such low standards- or if you are consistant with your so called "values"
In McClellens comment- he only said "involved in this" he didn't say " I will wait until I have a conviction to fire anyone"
I am just wondering if you only hold the GW regime to such low standards- or if you are consistant with your so called "values"
In McClellens comment- he only said "involved in this" he didn't say " I will wait until I have a conviction to fire anyone"
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
Of course, this is nothing new though.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
No consequences, he is untouchable anyway, so even if there were consequences he wouldn't be subject to any punishment.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Anything that comes out of the President's mouth is absolutely worthless. I used to be interested in what he was saying, now I just turn him off and watch something else.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
Of course, this is nothing new though.
If yes, what should the consequences be?
No consequences, he is untouchable anyway, so even if there were consequences he wouldn't be subject to any punishment.
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Anything that comes out of the President's mouth is absolutely worthless. I used to be interested in what he was saying, now I just turn him off and watch something else.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 15 2007, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE
I think you keep looking for the conviction- you won't get it- BTW- do you hold this standard true for everyone? For instance- since Clinton was never CONVICTED of lying- that means he didn't lie?
Bill Clinton was found in civil contempt by a federal judge. link
Of course anytime a Republican brings up Clinton, people here scream about relevance.
QUOTE
OJ was declared NOt guilty- do you believe, that OJ didn't do it?
OJ is still out there walking around, playing golf, signing autographs. What I believe in that case is irrelevant, I never would have been on the OJ jury because one of my neighbors at the time was one of the lead detectives on the case. I knew who he was and what he was and just say I wouldn't have believed a damn thing he said at the trial.
QUOTE
Al Capone was NEVER convicted of anything but tax evasion- never could get him on anything else- do you think he had nothing to do with the St Valentine's day massacre?
This is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.
QUOTE
I am just wondering if you only hold the GW regime to such low standards- or if you are consistant with your so called "values"
"So-called values".... Well, at least I have some.
QUOTE
In McClellens comment- he only said "involved in this" he didn't say " I will wait until I have a conviction to fire anyone"
Yes, involved in a crime, if there was a crime and apparently there wasn't a crime. So, there was no "this" there.
And moving on to more Bush-bashing, we get the following from Barnaby.... (I don't want to be accused of "cherry-picking" posts here).....
QUOTE
Anything that comes out of the President's mouth is absolutely worthless. I used to be interested in what he was saying, now I just turn him off and watch something else.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
To quote the caveman on the Geico commercial, "Uh, What?"
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 15 2007, 06:35 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 15 2007, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE
I think you keep looking for the conviction- you won't get it- BTW- do you hold this standard true for everyone? For instance- since Clinton was never CONVICTED of lying- that means he didn't lie?
Bill Clinton was found in civil contempt by a federal judge. link
Of course anytime a Republican brings up Clinton, people here scream about relevance.
QUOTE
OJ was declared NOt guilty- do you believe, that OJ didn't do it?
OJ is still out there walking around, playing golf, signing autographs. What I believe in that case is irrelevant, I never would have been on the OJ jury because one of my neighbors at the time was one of the lead detectives on the case. I knew who he was and what he was and just say I wouldn't have believed a damn thing he said at the trial.
QUOTE
Al Capone was NEVER convicted of anything but tax evasion- never could get him on anything else- do you think he had nothing to do with the St Valentine's day massacre?
This is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.
QUOTE
I am just wondering if you only hold the GW regime to such low standards- or if you are consistant with your so called "values"
"So-called values".... Well, at least I have some.
QUOTE
In McClellens comment- he only said "involved in this" he didn't say " I will wait until I have a conviction to fire anyone"
Yes, involved in a crime, if there was a crime and apparently there wasn't a crime. So, there was no "this" there.
And moving on to more Bush-bashing, we get the following from Barnaby.... (I don't want to be accused of "cherry-picking" posts here).....
QUOTE
Anything that comes out of the President's mouth is absolutely worthless. I used to be interested in what he was saying, now I just turn him off and watch something else.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
Since the President's dismissal of the recommendations in the Baker-Hamilton report, he has essentially been ignored by the public. His approval ratings can't possibly get any lower and plus he has been collared by Congress. There is an unspoken agreement between the President and Congress, the President has promised not to screw anything up and Congress has promised to let him finish his term. Two months after the '06 elections there were candidates were declaring their bid for the Presidency. There are almost 20 people trying to get that job and any one of them is more capable than this fool we have now.
Let's just let Boy George finish his disastrous presidency without any more damage than he's already done.
To quote the caveman on the Geico commercial, "Uh, What?"
Aquilla
it is very relevent if you have one standard for a republican, and another standard for everyone else
QUOTE
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
No – since this man is not the “leaker” I find the question amusing.
QUOTE
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
More than run it course. Lets have a thread on the same subject and compare Bush pardons to Bill’s. That will be fun.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 10:43 AM)
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
No. Libby is not now, nor has he ever even been accused of being the leaker. Dick Armitage is the leaker.QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 10:43 AM)
If yes, what should the consequences be?
NAQUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 10:43 AM)
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
Yeah. It's a dead story. No one really cares. No one ever really did. No one cares about Valerie Plame or her husband. Very few people are truly concerned with CIA agents being outed. Most who claim they were would have outed a CIA agent if it suited them. Mock rage, over a mock trial ending in a commutation isn't a story that's going to have any legs.QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 16 2007, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE
Has the President broken his word to the American people about action he would take to punish the leaker?
No – since this man is not the “leaker” I find the question amusing.
QUOTE
Has this issue "run its course" as the President claims?
More than run it course. Lets have a thread on the same subject and compare Bush pardons to Bill’s. That will be fun.
Oh my God, is there some sort of Republican mass mailing that I don't know about? Everywhere I turn, I hear this same argument brought up. Is this some sort of childish game we're all playing? Like kids on a playground trying to shift blame by crying, "Well, he did it first!" I don't know of a single person who defends President Clinton's pardons/commutations while criticizing Bush's. No wonder nothing changes in government, when one person performs a questionable action, it is immediately defended by bringing up a previous incident. Why not do this in the judicial system? "Your honor, O.J. Simpson committed murder and got off free, so my client should not be prosecuted either."
President Clinton issued his pardons as his last act as President, and he received much criticism for it. However, since he was out of office by then, it lost much of its media worthiness. Incidentally, Marc Rich, one of the men pardoned by Clinton, was represented by Scooter Libby.
Investigating Clinton's 11th Hour Pardons -- CNN.com
*edited to correct link*
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.