Well Christ Bill, aren’t you even going to play fucking lip service to the idea that a person is supposed to be pardoned BECAUSE THE PERSON WAS WRONGFULLY CONVICTED?
No, I wasn’t living in some kind of fantasy land where I thought that was actually true, but fuck, is the idea of pardons not being pure politics so absurd that no one even pretends anymore? Even if your pathetic claims that Rich suffered “prosecutorial abuse” are true, you are saying “Fuck him, if I were to do it again I’d let him rot so I don’t look bad.”
Fucking asslicking shithumping politician fuck.
(And no, I don’t particularly think W is any better, as if that might make a difference, but this quote from Clinton really pissed me off)
Eh, he’s probably lying and just saying that to get the news to pay attention to him again. Just ignore him and he’ll go away. He’s not president anymore and he never will be again, it doesn’t do a heck of a lot of good to stew over Clinton.
Revtim, I don’t think you’re interpreting the quote the way I do (which, based on reading the article and the other quotes therein is what I think Clinton intended).
I think what he was saying that he wouldn’t do it again because of the political shitstorm that resulted. He is still denying wrongdoing, but feels that he was “mugged one more time on the way out the door.”
Clinton didn’t do one thing that hasn’t been done by other politicians on both sides of the political fence. The thing that pisses off the republicans though is that they tried so hard to make him look worse than all the others and it didn’t work. After spending millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate all of these alleged things he did, all they really came up with was a blow job. Much to their dismay, many of us didn’t really care. I’d easily take 12 more years of Clinton rather than the current clown.
Clinton has been out of office for two fucking years people. Get over it already and focus on the bullshit being generated by the current administration.
I think we are reading the quote in exactly the same manner. His decision on whether he should have made the pardon or not is being based solely upon politics, and not whether or not the recipient of the pardon was unjustly convicted. This is what I find disgusting.
And before anyone accuses me of being a Clinton demonizer, I should point out that I’m a democrat, and voted for Clinton. Just because I felt the dems platform was better than the 'pubs doesn’t mean I’m going to blindly defend everything disgusting that a dem politician does.
To be honest, I would too, but that doesn’t make Clinton immune to my criticism. Unlike many on this board (not necessarily you musicguy), just because a politician is in the same party I prefer, I don’t defend their every inane and corrupt action.
The subject of your post “There is nothing wrong with it being political” is mere opinion. My opinion differs. If you had said there is nothing illegal about it, then I’d agree.
You guys have completely misconstrued what the article says. He does not say the pardon was based on political considerations. He says that in retrospect, maybe he should have considered the political consequences.
The only thing is that I don’t see him saying anywhere that the pardons were about politics. He seems to say that he still believes he did the right thing. Then come the Republicans, salivating at the chance to cause as much damage to this guys reputation as they possibly can, even as he is leaving office. The political damage of that attack has caused him to reconsider whether it was worth it. While I can understand that he should not have any regrets if he thinks what he did was right, I can’t really blame him for feeling that way.
Naw, we’ve still got Jimmy Carter, too. Just as you still have Reagan, Nixon and a whole host of partisan boobs. On both sides fo the aisle. Politics is, well, political. And that’s my insight for the day.
Thank you for your submission to Clinton Hit Job on-line.
Review of your CHJ as follows:
Hate: 6 Reading Skills/Spin: Inc Rationality: 4
This needs to be resubmitted, for the many errors to numerous for our staff to review. Out-of-context quotes should be strung together for maximum spin; Anger was v. gd, but the insults were poorly executed (Shithumping?); We remain unimpressed with your ‘Bush done it too’ caveat. Please submit a single page paper on the difference between “everybody does it” and “double standard”, and why it doesn’t matter in this case.
He denied pardon-for-cash with Marc Rich, and the Government Reform Committee (headed by Dan Burton, R, IN) appears to disagree with that in this CNN article about the Newsweek story.
Here’s a tip, whenever you read or hear a political story from CNN, AP, MSNBC, Newsweek, ABCNBCCBS or FOX, please please please recognize the extreme probability there is a spin to it. Left, Right, Topspin, whatever. Try the international view of the same story, like Reuters, here. It will be different a lot of times out of ten.
This Reuters article explains to their reading public that this same Congressional Committee says while the Rich pardon does not have evidence of dirty politics, there are 17 others that smell pretty darned bad, a point missed by CNN (shocker).
I have not seen the Newsweek article, so I can comment only on the CNN and Reuters take of it here.
Revtim, I like your politics. Platforms, with standards.
