OT - Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JW

The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

Amen. The arguments of "who is the worst ever", or "is this worse than the past" may make for an interesting intellectual exercise, but it doesn't really help in the grand scheme. Things can be right or wrong on their own without a comparison to the other party or to history.

[NoMyths]

This is interesting: last year, the Bush Administration filed a motion to uphold the 33-month sentence against Victor Rita, who was convicted of the very same crimes as Libby (perjury and obstruction of justice). I'm unfamiliar with the Rita case, but it does make for an interesting counterpoint to his professed beliefs on excessive sentencing.

Link: Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby

Full Text:
Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby

Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 4, 2007, 4:41 pm
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush Justice Dept., ruling against Rita’s appeal for a reduced sentence based his exemplary military service.

Sen. Joe Biden: "Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.”

"Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.”"

Pres. Bush cited Libby’s “years of exceptional public service” in commuting his prison sentence. But Libby is the classic Bushie chickenhawk — a neocon bureaucrat with no service record whose fingerprints are all over the worst military planning in American history.

Conversely, Victor Rita is the real deal:

Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems.

The Supreme Court ruled on the case last month:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably…

The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to help define “advisory.”

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are “presumptively reasonable.”

It is customary in the pardoning process for the president to contact the Justice Dept. for input. But the White House is adamant that Bush did not speak to anyone at Justice about the Libby pardon. If he had run it past them, it’s possible he could have avoided what appears to be a spectacular blunder.

[dawgfan]

I can't wait for the administration apologists to spin this one...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Nomyths

This is interesting: last year, the Bush Administration filed a motion to uphold the 33-month sentence against Victor Rita, who was convicted of the very same crimes as Libby (perjury and obstruction of justice). I'm unfamiliar with the Rita case, but it does make for an interesting counterpoint to his professed beliefs on excessive sentencing.

I feel like I have heard of this Rita case somewhere before. Maybe even in this thread.

Originally Posted by John Galt

They really can't argue that it was too harsh. The sentence was well within the Sentencing Guidelines which this administration has repeatedly defended as presumptively reasonable. The recent Rita case which went to the Supreme Court provides a particularly hard comparison for this administration. Rita was guilty of the same crimes as Scooter, received a comparable sentence, had all sorts of positives in his life history (war veteran, etc.), and the administration won the argument that Rita's sentence was "reasonable." Arguing that Scooter's sentence was "unreasonable," but Rita's was "reasonable," is impossible without making bizarre mental gymnastic manuevers.

[Flasch186]

PSU, whatcha think about that?

oh, AND it just came out that the judge doesnt think that probation is applicable since Scooter served no time...so there goes the other defense Bush espoused.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

PSU, whatcha think about that?

See, now that's just silly. Are you really expecting a serious answer?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

See, now that's just silly. Are you really expecting a serious answer?

no. I asked it with sarcasm.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Holy hell, I'm agreeing with JPhillips.

This isn't about what Clinton did. Believe me, I'm not a fan of Clinton or his pardons but it doesn't excuse what Bush did. It's a abuse of that power.

I don't think it is a case of excusing one by pointing at the other. It is just the majority of the people who are seething over the Bush decision will vigorously defend the Clinton decisions which are at least equally bad. So, it is really good fun watching the hypocrisy abound.

Honestly, in any of the cases where a pardon is used, it is not an abuse of power. The executive branch has that ability. They are not skewing it or using it in a way that bends the interpretation of the constitution, etc. it is perfectly legal and within the executive branch's legitimate use of power.

Clinton can pardon convicted FALN terrorists that killed US citizens, doners Marc Rich who brokered kick back transactions in the Iraqi-Oil-For-Food scam, the Gregory's who paid 107K to Clinton's brother in law to broker the pardon, people who refused to testify against Clinton in the whitewater scam, Rostenkowski who was a Congressman convicted in the congressional post office scam, Clinton's own brother for drug charges, Melvin Reynolds (dem. congressman) for bank fraud and solicitation of child pornography, etc.

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

Than no matter how the person you voted for makes decisions, be prepared to not like all of the decisions.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Here is another example of where a Pardon would be most prudent:

LOL at "another"

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think it is a case of excusing one by pointing at the other. It is just the majority of the people who are seething over the Bush decision will vigorously defend the Clinton decisions which are at least equally bad. So, it is really good fun watching the hypocrisy abound....

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

Straw man. Point to one person here who has argued in favor of Clinton's pardons, or even said anything about the 76 pardons that Bush has given so far. The hypocrisy you speak of does not exist. I think certain pardons that each gave were just and some were outrageous. The Libby commutation is just extra immoral because it obstructs a criminal investigation into the executive branch. It basically sets the standard that people in the executive branch are above the law.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I feel like I have heard of this Rita case somewhere before. Maybe even in this thread.

Clearly it bore repeating.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Remember the "oral sex isn't really sex" defense?

Because oral sex isn't sex, neither colloquially (if I told my friends I had sex with a girl and it turned it out was just a bj, I would be laughed out of the room) or by the legal definition agreed to in the trial.

Originally Posted by JW

The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

This is utter psuedo-centrist crap. The Dems aren't even seriously contemplating impeachment, so how can their top goal be getting Bush? The Democrats hate Bush, because EVERYONE hates Bush. Bush has a 28% approval rating, compared to Clinton who left office with about a 60% approval rating. He has a bad approval rating because things suck right now compared to when Clinton was in office. If you approve of what Bush is doing, fine, then just say so. But don't act like Bush is gloriously leading us and having a 90% approval rating is the Democrats being mean.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

Than no matter how the person you voted for makes decisions, be prepared to not like all of the decisions.

The right to grant pardons is my least favorite part of the Constitution. Even at it's most noble base - the ability for the President to show compassion or correct a since-discovered legal/judicial mistake, it still feels like a throwback to the powers of a King, and is obviously ripe for abuse.

And I still haven't seen a defense from the administration apologists for the inconsistency between the Rita case and the Libby case. Perhaps because there isn't a logical consistency, and the difference is simply pardoning Libby covers the ass of Bush and his cronies, whereas the Rita case has no direct affect on them?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Because oral sex isn't sex

This is true...in much the same way that potato chips aren't chips and sugar cookies aren't cookies.

[JPhillips]

Joshua Marshall says it pretty clearly:

Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think it is a case of excusing one by pointing at the other. It is just the majority of the people who are seething over the Bush decision will vigorously defend the Clinton decisions which are at least equally bad. So, it is really good fun watching the hypocrisy abound.

Surprisingly, I haven't see that in this discussion all that much.

But my point is that the two things, regardless of any defense of Clinton's pardons, have nothing at all to do with one another. This isn't a case of "well, if Clinton did it, and he was wrong (and we complained about him being wrong back then), then we should have the right to do something just as wrong." It shouldn't work that way.

Honestly, in any of the cases where a pardon is used, it is not an abuse of power. The executive branch has that ability. They are not skewing it or using it in a way that bends the interpretation of the constitution, etc. it is perfectly legal and within the executive branch's legitimate use of power.

He has the power, but he is abusing it on behalf of a friend of his. Using it for personal gain is not the intent of that section. The Presidency should be above this.

Clinton can pardon convicted FALN terrorists that killed US citizens, doners Marc Rich who brokered kick back transactions in the Iraqi-Oil-For-Food scam, the Gregory's who paid 107K to Clinton's brother in law to broker the pardon, people who refused to testify against Clinton in the whitewater scam, Rostenkowski who was a Congressman convicted in the congressional post office scam, Clinton's own brother for drug charges, Melvin Reynolds (dem. congressman) for bank fraud and solicitation of child pornography, etc.

None of which has anything at all to do with Scooter Libby.

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

It's just as hypocritical to defend Bush and criticise Clinton, which is what we (ie Republicans) are doing. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what any other President has done with this particular Constitutional power. What Bush has done is wrong.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This is true...in much the same way that potato chips aren't chips and sugar cookies aren't cookies.

Did you no longer consider yourself a virgin after your first incident of oral sex?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Did you no longer consider yourself a virgin after your first incident of oral sex?

I honestly never cared enough about my virginal status to identify the exact moment it was lost.

[cartman]

If this was simply a case of the Democrats out to get Bush for commuting the sentence, that means that about 80% of the population consider themselves Democrats, because just about every poll out there is running about 20% in favor of the president's decision.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...52e&frame=true

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You don't believe in political apathy, you were just suggesting that you do in this case? If you are giving the historical perspective of political apathy, wouldn't it then be prudent to show where that has gone awry?

You don't believe that the legislature and executive has absolutely no effect on your life, but you said it anyway for historical perspective? Can you indicate somehow for me when you believe what you say and when you don't believe it but are just saying it for some other reason or something?

There is a lot different from when the Dems were in power to now, and stuff that effects me, from taxes to friends being off at war to future taxes to pay off the deficit, to waiting twice as long in line at the airport, etc. But I will agree with you in that since Bush has been in office, there have been few domestic legislative accomplishments beyond homeland security. There isn't much of a reason, historically speaking, to think that with Dems in power there would have been more domestic change.

But I personally advocate a very different form of government, or at least a very different mindset. One that the current admin doesn't come close to achieving, and one that the Dems will not attempt to achieve. I have made my voice heard by not support Bush in 2004 and voting straight libertarian for Congress, as well as trying to get people here off of the red/blue spectrum. I, unlike you and other such as PSUColonel and WVU, don't see how playing the opposition game will make much difference and I react against that. The reason for the historical perspective is to show that things will change, for better and for worse depending what your interests are but in most things, people will go on living their lives. A libertarian viewpoint involves radical changes to most people's lifestyles but most are too busy playing the opposition politics game and being politically apathetic for many good and bad reasons. You may strongly desire for a regime change because of your deep opposition and hatred but from where I sit, it won't make much difference. So the alternative is do the things that you can directly make a difference in people's live and believe that spouting off opposition politics isn't one of them that's going to make a difference.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I honestly never cared enough about my virginal status to identify the exact moment it was lost.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, one's sexual activity or choosing to be abstinent is one's on choice and I respect whatever it is one chooses to do. As for the legal definition, here is what was agreed upon:

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

Mouth isn't on the list, so legally he did not have sexual relations with her, though by that definition she had it with him. Like I said, he was slippery.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Joshua Marshall says it pretty clearly:

But, but, but Clinton pardoned a bunch of shady people too! Misdirect, misdirect!

[Buccaneer]

Maybe next time I'll check to see if there's a next page before I post anymore string of thoughts. Yikes.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I wonder if there will ever be a thread criticizing Bush where his defenders don't point to Clinton. I mean really, if that's the best you've got then that doesn't say very much for Dubya.

I think this bears repeating.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A libertarian viewpoint involves radical changes to most people's lifestyles but most are too busy playing the opposition politics game and being politically apathetic for many good and bad reasons. You may strongly desire for a regime change because of your deep opposition and hatred but from where I sit, it won't make much difference. So the alternative is do the things that you can directly make a difference in people's live and believe that spouting off opposition politics isn't one of them that's going to make a difference.

I believe that libertarianism isn't being enacted not because 'people are busy with opposition politics', but because libertarianism isn't very popular to begin with, neither here nor in anywhere else in the world that I am aware of. From my perspective, because it is a system doomed to failure for various tragedy of the commons type reasons. I think social libertarianism (which I consider myself to be somewhat) has the best chance to catch on, but not on the fiscal end. I've given a lot of though to libertarianism, but the reason I choose not to push for it isn't because I am stuck in a red/blue spectrum, it's because it's bad policy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think this bears repeating.

for it will always continue, just with different names.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But I personally advocate a very different form of government, or at least a very different mindset.

I appreciate that position Bucc, and I have a deep distaste for "politics as usual". The problem I have with Libertarianism is that I simply don't agree with many of the positions that this philosophy takes - I agree much more frequently with positions that Democratic candidates take, and certain positions some Republicans take.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I, unlike you and other such as PSUColonel and WVU, don't see how playing the opposition game will make much difference and I react against that.

You are right -- I do play the opposition game too much. I'm reevaluating that. It's ingrained in me, the idea of Republican=good and Democrat=bad, but it's increasingly apparent to me that the two party system is very, very broken.

So, in other words, you're right. I'm guilty of that.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, one's sexual activity or choosing to be abstinent is one's on choice and I respect whatever it is one chooses to do.

I think you missed that completely. I never cared about the label of 'virgin' or felt the need to know exactly what I needed to do to have the label not apply. I guess I cared more about living my life than labeling it.

[Buccaneer]

There is a difference between Libertarian and libertarianism. I have not and will not join a political party, not even the Libertarian party, for I do not believe in them. Part of it is that I believe it goes against the wishes of the founders of this country and the ideals they have set up, as well as followed what partisan politics have done in 1800 and beyond.

Actually, Biggle hit on a partial truth in that there are distinctions in libertarianism, from social to fiscal to whatever. Most of my focus, as I have been writing about for the past few years, have been on doing things more personally and locally as oppose to worry about what goes on in DC, which we seem to not affect much. However, I cannot fathom how anyone can tolerate the trillions of dollars of our money they have wasted over the years, from ill-defined departments to extortionist legislation (against the states and locals) to needless military and nation-buildng expenditures, all for keeping people busy doing nothing and to think of ways to make things more complicated? Too much power we have granted the federal govt, regardless if you think executive or legislature has too much. It's time to start electing those that will slow down their power grabs, not just shift it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Surprisingly, I haven't see that in this discussion all that much.

But my point is that the two things, regardless of any defense of Clinton's pardons, have nothing at all to do with one another. This isn't a case of "well, if Clinton did it, and he was wrong (and we complained about him being wrong back then), then we should have the right to do something just as wrong." It shouldn't work that way.



He has the power, but he is abusing it on behalf of a friend of his. Using it for personal gain is not the intent of that section. The Presidency should be above this.



None of which has anything at all to do with Scooter Libby.



It's just as hypocritical to defend Bush and criticise Clinton, which is what we (ie Republicans) are doing. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what any other President has done with this particular Constitutional power. What Bush has done is wrong.

I agree with you so Im sure the temperature just dropped in hell.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

You are right -- I do play the opposition game too much. I'm reevaluating that. It's ingrained in me, the idea of Republican=good and Democrat=bad, but it's increasingly apparent to me that the two party system is very, very broken.

So, in other words, you're right. I'm guilty of that.

This is a remarkably mature post, and is a mark in your favor.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Because oral sex isn't sex, neither colloquially (if I told my friends I had sex with a girl and it turned it out was just a bj, I would be laughed out of the room) or by the legal definition agreed to in the trial..

Thank you for taking that position. Remember that Clinton himself admitted later that he lied, ahem, made false responses to questions. I assume false responses are to lies as bjs are to sex.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is utter psuedo-centrist crap. The Dems aren't even seriously contemplating impeachment, so how can their top goal be getting Bush? The Democrats hate Bush, because EVERYONE hates Bush. Bush has a 28% approval rating, compared to Clinton who left office with about a 60% approval rating. He has a bad approval rating because things suck right now compared to when Clinton was in office. If you approve of what Bush is doing, fine, then just say so. But don't act like Bush is gloriously leading us and having a 90% approval rating is the Democrats being mean.

Actually some liberal talking heads have suggested impeachment and some Congressional Democrats have pondered the possibility.

Now, who said I approve of what Bush is doing? There you go again, Mr. Big, assuming incorrectly that just because I don't see things the same way you see them that I must see them the opposite way. But there is always a rational third way of looking at things, and often more than three ways of viewing something. In this case the third way is that both Dems and Reps are largely full of crap right now and that both parties are more interested in temporary political advantage than the good of the country. I refuse to be pigeonholed by you into a Republican slot. I have nothing but distaste for the Republican Party and always have.

But I know my biggest sin in your eyes is that I just don't hate Bush enough. However, let me make you feel better by saying that the Bush presidency has been a disaster. And let me further assuage you by saying that Clinton was not a disaster, though he made a lot of mistakes. I voted for him. Twice. See, you really don't have a clue.

And I stand by my utter pseudo-centrist crap. We've been ruled by the politics of hate for the last 16 years. Don't try to sell me on the crap, to use your term, that many Democrats in Congress and many liberals across the country are not motivated by hatred of Bush, a hatred that had its birth in the mythical stolen election.

You are fascinating to read. You always give the purest of motives to the left and most evil of motives to the right. You should try objectivity sometimes. You might find it refreshing.

Oh, I almost forgot. That impeachment thing. I guess that depends on the definition of "serious." Here is the wikipedia entry on the movement to impeach Bush. Interesting stuff. I had forgotten some of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

The Republicans were idiots to impeach Clinton. The Democrats would be idiots to try the same. Though I actually think they prefer a wounded Bush because it probably helps their very good chances in 08.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JW

BTW, I think the Republicans, much like the Democrats today, were so obsessed by their hatred that it blinded them. The impeachment was idiotic. We've seen nearly 16 years of the politics of hate from both parties now. It does the country no good. The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

Actually I think a lot of what Clinton got was Republican payback for what the Dems did to Reagan/Bush I...so its more like 26 years of the politics of hate from both parties. Of course, I've always been just fine with gridlock. The less Congress legislates, the less chance they have of screwing things up.

[Buccaneer]

26 years is correct.

After seeing what JW wrote, it looks like Biggle is back to spewing his hated crap and is aghast at why not everyone feels the same way he does and I get slammed for calling him an extremist. But he had admitted a while back that he likes to argue for the sake of argument, which most of us are guilty of, though.

[JPhillips]

Hell, a lot of it goes back to Nixon at least. Look at how many admin officials and congressmen were around during the impeachment hearings.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree with you so Im sure the temperature just dropped in hell.

Heh. :-)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hell, a lot of it goes back to Nixon at least. Look at how many admin officials and congressmen were around during the impeachment hearings.

I thought about that for Nixon inspired quite a bit of hate but during my HS years (1974-1978) and up until 1981, there seems to have been a void. Ford was the transition to Carter which didn't seem put much emphasis on the Nixon/Ford years. I recall the 1976 election was relatively civil. The Congressional battles, on the other hand, were vicious because you had that huge, entrenched Democratic machine.

But back to your point. I believe Watergate got Nixon off the hook because he definitely paid for his sins and the opposition got their justice and revenge. Reagan not only trounced two Dems but came out a hero to many despite the opposition insistent attacks.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Straw man. Point to one person here who has argued in favor of Clinton's pardons, or even said anything about the 76 pardons that Bush has given so far. The hypocrisy you speak of does not exist. I think certain pardons that each gave were just and some were outrageous. The Libby commutation is just extra immoral because it obstructs a criminal investigation into the executive branch. It basically sets the standard that people in the executive branch are above the law.

Same as the McDougal pardon. There are also many other examples of Clinton exercising executive branch power to protect his administration. It's expected. All of the actions in each administration are not always apples to apples, but it is all fruit to fruit.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually I think a lot of what Clinton got was Republican payback for what the Dems did to Reagan/Bush I...so its more like 26 years of the politics of hate from both parties. Of course, I've always been just fine with gridlock. The less Congress legislates, the less chance they have of screwing things up.

Uh, what was so bad about what they did to Reagan/Bush I? They made a deal with Republicans not to go after anyone higher than Poindexter on Iran/Contra. They pretty much let Reagan's economic policies pass. They worked together with the Republicans on Gramm/Rudman/Hollings. Bush I was criticized, but he was never demonized. They criticized Bush I for policies, but it wasn't personal. Other than blocking a couple of the Supreme Court nominees, I just don't see where the Democrats treated Reagan and Bush I in a way that was substantially different from the way opposition parties treated previous presidents.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Same as the McDougal pardon. There are also many other examples of Clinton exercising executive branch power to protect his administration. It's expected. All of the actions in each administration are not always apples to apples, but it is all fruit to fruit.

Bolded the important thing there.

While you may be right that it's expected of adminstrations of both parties to do that, the fact that it is expected turns my stomach. Something about the fact that base abuse of power is expected out of an adminstration is messed up.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

However, let me make you feel better by saying that the Bush presidency has been a disaster.

This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred. You think maybe that the Democrats and most independents realize what a terrible job Bush has done, as you have realized, and therefore want him and the people that have cheered on his decisions for years to be out of power? You think maybe that, since Bush has been a disaster, you could say that Dem Bush-hatred doesn't just come from the 'stolen election', but rather his failed policy? Perhaps you could say that the GOP attacking and impeaching Clinton for periphery issues when he was at 60% approval is different than the Democrats attacking the policy decisions of Bush at 28% approval? But no, you must attack both sides in order to maintain your centrist image (either to others or to yourself). You can see Bush for the failure that he has been, but others can only cheer on their tribe.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred.

Biggie has quite a good point here. It's hard to claim that Bush has been a disaster and then assert that the left is motivated by Bush-hatred. His disasterous policies probably have a LOT to do with the left's disgust of him.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Biggie has quite a good point here. It's hard to claim that Bush has been a disaster and then assert that the left is motivated by Bush-hatred. His disasterous policies probably have a LOT to do with the left's disgust of him.

Isn't that pretty much the only reason there can be? You certainly wouldn't hate him because you liked his policies. I mean that is what I don't understand about the defense of saying "well, you're just a Bush-hater." Uh, yeah, because he's a complete disaster as president. I'll admit I don't like the guy. But it's not because of the color of his hair or his flatulence. It's because his policies stink.

[BigDawg]

Its time, Bush needs to resign !!!!!!



When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. --Thomas Jefferson.

[Buccaneer]

Be careful what you wish for. Bush is the figurehead for Cheney. Would you rather have Cheney as President??

Biggle et al: Don't be so noble in thinking it's the policies you hate. It started in the 2000 campaign and the election aftermath, before the policies were even in place. There had been so much vitrol from both side built up under Clinton that it had to find an outlet when he left.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure I see where Bush's policies are substantially different from Clinton's, anyway.

[nole4sho]

Not at all shocked. This man is a terrible president...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Biggle et al: Don't be so noble in thinking it's the policies you hate. It started in the 2000 campaign and the election aftermath, before the policies were even in place. There had been so much vitrol from both side built up under Clinton that it had to find an outlet when he left.

If people on the left really disliked Bush that much in 2000, I don't think Ralph Nader would have gotten 3 million votes. Bush would never have become president if not for the general ambivalence about him at the time. Many Nader voters only recanted some time later, after it became apparent just how bad Bush was. Bush got a fair shake. He just blew it.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred. You think maybe that the Democrats and most independents realize what a terrible job Bush has done, as you have realized, and therefore want him and the people that have cheered on his decisions for years to be out of power? You think maybe that, since Bush has been a disaster, you could say that Dem Bush-hatred doesn't just come from the 'stolen election', but rather his failed policy? Perhaps you could say that the GOP attacking and impeaching Clinton for periphery issues when he was at 60% approval is different than the Democrats attacking the policy decisions of Bush at 28% approval? But no, you must attack both sides in order to maintain your centrist image (either to others or to yourself). You can see Bush for the failure that he has been, but others can only cheer on their tribe.

Nope, I was quite clear in what I said. I said many on the left are motivated by hatred of Bush and that the hatred had its genesis in the 2000 election. I think a look at moveon.org and other leftwing sites would quickly show that there is a lot of hate and that it has been there from the very beginning of his first term. I don't think many reasonable people question that.

And I think that hatred influences the debate regarding the Libby commutation and that the politics of hate has damaged the American political process and the nation over the last 16 years.

I don't see that as being a "crap" position.

A couple of addenda:

I just did a quick google search of "Bush hate," lol, and found this interesting flashback to 2004, before the election. An analysis of why Bush is hated.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Bu.....-a0113564059

And I have to ask the reciprocal question. Did (and do) many on the right hate Clinton's policies or Clinton the man?