I wanted to blog on this earlier today but ran out of time.
I have to say that I'm not buying the premise by John Dean by way of Keith Olbermann that Bush would not issue a blanket pardon for the telecoms/Gov officials for illegally spying on the American public because it would be an admission of criminal guilt.
Dean is basing this on Nixon's decision not to issue last minute pardons for Watergate before he was drummed out of office.
But what Dean (and KO) are missing is that Nixon knew the difference between right and wrong, hence the cover-up. He knew he and his administration had broken the law but he tried to hide it and was loath to admit what all knew: that he was a crook.
Bush, on the other hand, believes whatever he does is right.
He already pardoned Libby after claiming he would fire anyone involved in outing Plame. The man routinely attaches signing statements to laws so he can break 'em. His own Daddy pardoned the whole Iran-Contra crew for chrissakes.
Bush would have absolutely no problem giving a blanket pardon to any and all involved because he would not view it as an admission of guilt. Instead, he would see it as protecting the righteous.
.
maria, i agree 100 percent.
ReplyDeleteme, too.
ReplyDeleteI think you're spot-on, Maria.
ReplyDeleteOne correction though: George granted Scooter clemency not a pardon.
The pardon will probably come after the election.
.
MARIA!
ReplyDeleteWelcome back!
We missed you.
I think I might have to disagree slightly here. Once he's out of office he'd have no control over which (if any) laws the next president could ignore. I think that if pardons are offered that would bring with it an automatic presumtption taht crimes did take place (regardless of whether dubya thought it is divine right to commit them).
Pardoning for the spying could then lead to greater scrutiny of his own crimes.
Just wanted to get that in.
Dayvoe
John K: He ought to pardon them just to stop these insane witch hunts launched by the left. Also, since the left realizes it has to support the FISA bill (because if we get attacked, we know exactly who we are going to blame. And the left knows this, which is why they are afraid) the telecom companies should be pardoned.
ReplyDeleteAll you have heard from the left for 4 years is impeachment and indictment. Neither of which made our country safer or produced one barrell of oil.
"Loath". The word you were looking for was "loath", which is an adjective. "Loathe" is a verb meaning "to hate intensely".
ReplyDeleteI can't get worked up over FISA because I consider the Consitution, in many respects, to be an arcane, out-dated document with some great ideas, that has been twisted, misconstrued and selectively applied even before the ink used to write it was dry. It's like the Bible - everyone has their own interpretation yet every one uses the book/document in question to defend that interpretation.
ReplyDeleteNot that I support expanding the Executive's powers or stripping away 4th Amendment rigths...I don't...I'm just really cynical when it comes to the Constitution...
Otherwise, I think you're spot on. W would most certainly, in that instance, see the act of pardoning those complicit in facilitating the illegal surveillance of Americans as protecting "patriots."
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteHey! I was rushing this out on my lunch hour, but you are right. Fixed now.
John K: Jaywillie said it well. This blog is devoted to determining which parts of the Constitution are good and which they choose to ignore. Of course the left never provides a road map to that method of logic. They just wake up one day and decide what parts of the Constitution they choose to follow for the day and then go out and impeach anyone they think is not with them. Sad state of affairs for the left. Sad.
ReplyDelete"But what Dean (and KO) are missing is that Nixon knew the difference between right and wrong, hence the cover-up. He knew he and his administration had broken the law but he tried to hide it and was loath to admit what all knew: that he was a crook.
ReplyDeleteBush, on the other hand, believes whatever he does is right."
"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon
"This blog is devoted to determining which parts of the Constitution are good and which they choose to ignore. Of course the left never provides a road map to that method of logic. They just wake up one day and decide what parts of the Constitution they choose to follow for the day and then go out and impeach anyone they think is not with them. Sad state of affairs for the left. Sad."
I actually agree with John K in part. The Left is just as guilty as the Right with regard to selectively enforcing the Constitution. BTW, if the Constitution was treated as the libertarian document it was intended to be, there wouldn't be much in it to consider outdated. I mean, what's so outdated about, "Leave me alone and let me freely live my life in peace and keep what I earn for my labors (or purchase with those earnings), so long as I don't infringe on another person's right to the same."? The federal government has been arrogating powers to itself for so long that lawmakers and the electorate have sunk to bickering over which intrusive and liberty-shrinking powers it should have instead of having substantive arguments about why we've strayed so far from our nation's founding principles.
John K: Now on that comment I agree with Eric. But I still think the McCain comment was shameful. McCain's fitness reports do not reflect Eric's assessment of Sen. McCain.
ReplyDeleteYou're all living a dream! The only way to keep our Country safe is to be smarter and meaner than the other guy. Surely you learned this on the playground!
ReplyDeleteI used to be as idealistic as you guys. But I watched the "Space Race". That wasn't about getting to the moon, it was about getting more weapons. This is not a world of love and acceptance, this is survival of the fittest. Duh!!!!