Interesting. Well, tedious, obnoxious, rediculous, hypocrital, and silly, but, you know what I mean. I am going to ignore the first part of the AP story, in which she compares Bush’s pardon of Libby (he wasn’t pardoned, Hils) with Bills pardoning of drug dealers and other scumbags for this
As she campaigns with her husband for Iowa’s leadoff precinct caucuses, Clinton has joined other Democrats in ripping Bush’s decision. In the interview, she said it was "one more example" of the Bush administration thinking "it is above the rule of law."
Her husband’s pardons, issued in the closing hours of his presidency, were simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none were aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy, she said.
"This particular action by the president is one more piece of evidence in their ongoing disregard for the rule of law that they think they don’t have to answer to," she said.
This is the new Defeatocratic meme, that, somehow, Bush giving clemency to Libby for simply his jail term is disregarding the law. I have read this meme all over the port side of the Internet. The basis is that Libby was found guilty, sentenced to jail, and Bush changed the wishes of the jury and judge in favor of some sort of nepotism. After that, we start getting into the conspiracy theories, such as Hillary’s, as to the why’s.
Consider, though: when a murderer is found guilty by a jury, then goes through the penalty phase and the jury finds that there is enough evidence to sentence the convicted to death, what does the Left do? They petition the governor of that State to commute the sentence to life in prison. Otherwise known as clemency. When a governor does this, those on the Left cheer. The person could be a pedopheliac child killer, and they would still ask for clemency
Yet, when Libby is given clemency only as far as not serving jail time, since he will still have to pay the fine, serve probation, and be a convicted felon, the left goes ape.
Of course, do not bring up that Clinton was not only guilty of some of the same crimes, with the addition on subjoring testimony and contempt of court, because their talking points will say that it was a. only about sex, and every lies to a federal grand jury when one is being sued for sexual harrasment, even a sitting United States President, and b. years ago (ie, prior to 1/20/2001), so it is not relevant.
Blogs For Bush has a good post along the same lines, with lots of liberal seething in the comments.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Exposing the Neo-Right, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, DragonLady’s World, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Right Celebrity, Alabama Improper, and Blue Star Chronicles, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
