godzilla Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 libbey gets 30 months in the pen! oh yeah! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/cia...rial/index.html don't bend over in the shower, scooter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Oh and it unravels is correct. Rumsfeld driven out, Libby in jail, Wolfowitz outta the World Bank, Bushie chest thumping and screaming, oh how sweet it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blu-Truth Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Hopefully Hillarious Clinton gets in with Bill as the first lady... then Open-Season on the Dems starts. It's much easier to oppose everything when you don't have to come up with any realistic alternatives. You have the freedom to vote for or against something and then latter change your mind depending upon how hings turn out. Ah opposition is great, If Clinton was smart, she'd stay in opposition... much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Bush just commuted the sentence. As expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Not quite up there with Ford pardoning Nixon...but we'll take it. Putin made him do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Not quite up there with Ford pardoning Nixon...but we'll take it. Putin made him do it!I find it appalling that the US system allows politicians to pardon political hacks for crimes in the first place - especially if the politician granting the pardon has possible connections with the crime. Don't any of you Bushies find it disturbing that people working for the president can break almost any law they want and expect a full pardon the day the president leaves office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 I find it appalling that the US system allows politicians to pardon political hacks for crimes in the first place - especially if the politician granting the pardon has possible connections with the crime. Don't any of you Bushies find it disturbing that people working for the president can break almost any law they want and expect a full pardon the day the president leaves office? No..we Americans find it to be part of the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Scooter Libby did not get a "full pardon". President Bush could have pardoned him last year and avoided the trial and any fallout for VP Cheney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 No..we Americans find it to be part of the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2:You can't use the constitution to justify something as ethical or moral. A politician should never be allowed to pardon people when there is a personal relationship to that person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Not quite up there with Ford pardoning Nixon...but we'll take it. Putin made him do it!I find it appalling that the US system allows politicians to pardon political hacks for crimes in the first place - especially if the politician granting the pardon has possible connections with the crime. Don't any of you Bushies find it disturbing that people working for the president can break almost any law they want and expect a full pardon the day the president leaves office? The backlash has already begun. 67% of Americans according to ABC didn't want any reduction of the sentence or a pardon. Bush took off from Maine without telling a soul to make the announcement to avoid the Washington D.C. press corps. This plays to Bush's base. He wouldn't have announced it until after his immigration bill was decided. The bill was defeated by the Republicans and now Bush just wants to be able to to salvage something in the next year with the very few people who still support him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 You can't use the constitution to justify something as ethical or moral. A politician should never be allowed to pardon people when there is a personal relationship to that person. Of course we can....happens all the time. Clinton issued 456 clemency orders! What else don't you like about the United States Constitution? Maybe we should go back to kissing the king's ass? LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Of course we can....happens all the time. Clinton issued 456 clemency orders!Does not make right no matter what politician has done it. The american constutition is full of stuff that might have sounded ok on paper but is really dumb in practice. The practice might be tolerable if the politicians could be held accountable for their decisions. However, Bush will never face the voter and explain his decisions.You joke about the kissing the kings ass but you have created a system where the president is just as despotic as any king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Does not make right no matter what politician has done it. The american constutition is full of stuff that might have sounded ok on paper but is really dumb in practice. The practice might be tolerable if the politicians could be held accountable for their decisions. However, Bush will never face the voter and explain his decisions.You joke about the kissing the kings ass but you have created a system where the president is just as despotic as any king. Yea...those knuckleheads didn't know what they were doing back then. How foolish to write such nonsense...no wonder the loyalists fled to Canada to stay with what they knew...kissing the king's ass! The Canadian PM has more unchecked power than any US president. WRT clemency orders, state governors also have such powers....shocking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 The Canadian PM has more unchecked power than any US president. Absolutely correct, in the context of a majority government, which is what most Canadian governments are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Absolutely correct, in the context of a majority government, which is what most Canadian governments are.Can you give one example of where a Canadian PM used his power to spring a political cronie from jail? Canadian PMs have a lot of power but they are _always_ accountable to the electorate every 4-5 years. We don't have a situation where a politician has unchecked power _and_ will never need to face the voter and explain their decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 We don't have a situation where a politician has unchecked power _and_ will never need to face the voter and explain their decisions. Of course you do...Canadians do not vote for the Prime Minister...they vote for a party/MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Of course you do...Canadians do not vote for the Prime Minister...they vote for a party/MPs.The party has the power to boot the PM at anyhtime and the party is held accountable for the PMs actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Absolutely correct, in the context of a majority government, which is what most Canadian governments are.Can you give one example of where a Canadian PM used his power to spring a political cronie from jail? Canadian PMs have a lot of power but they are _always_ accountable to the electorate every 4-5 years. We don't have a situation where a politician has unchecked power _and_ will never need to face the voter and explain their decisions. Nope, but I don't need to...that wasn't the question. I simply agreed with BC that a majority PMO has far more power than a US president. Far more power. I have no idea whether the power to pardon is included in the astounding portfolio of powers available to a majority PMO, but a majority PMO can virtually dictate law at will...something a president can only dream about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 However, Bush will never face the voter and explain his decisions. What Bush does is hurt Republican prospects every day he remains of office. Today John McCain basically ran out of money. His campaign is over because he is too closely linked to Bush. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3338856&page=1 Latino support for Republicans has fallen to the floor. They liked Bush but Bush was not able to convince his party on immigration. This commuted sentence will only make a small proportion of the population happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 What Bush does is hurt Republican prospects every day he remains of office. Today John McCain basically ran out of money. His campaign is over because he is too closely linked to Bush. You mean there won't be any Republicans besides John McCain? ...gee...I thought we had plenty to go around. Senator McCain's campaign is not "over". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 but a majority PMO can virtually dictate law at will...something a president can only dream about.Not true. The PMO is accountable to the party. The sitting members in a party can legally replace the PM and PMO anytime they want. That is what happened to Thatcher and, to a lesser extent, Blair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 but a majority PMO can virtually dictate law at will...something a president can only dream about.Not true. The PMO is accountable to the party. The sitting members in a party can legally replace the PM and PMO anytime they want. That is what happened to Thatcher and, to a lesser extent, Blair. Uhuh, but with a strong whip party discipline, as under Chretien, the PMO rules absolute in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Uhuh, but with a strong whip party discipline, as under Chretien, the PMO rules absolute in fact.The rules regarding party discipline are not entrenched in the constitution. I am sure the Republicans would love get rid of Bush but they can't unless they resorted to a divisive battle over impeachment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Uhuh, but with a strong whip party discipline, as under Chretien, the PMO rules absolute in fact.The rules regarding party discipline are not entrenched in the constitution. I am sure the Republicans would love get rid of Bush but they can't unless they resorted to a divisive battle over impeachment. Virtually nothing is entrenched in the constitution. Why are you arguing against the bleeding obvious? Are you suggesting that in real life, with a strong whip and strong party discipline, that the PMO is not far more powerful than the presidency? Surely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 I don't think the PMO is above all law in Canada. I'm actually quite confident that Harper can't excuse his friends that commit crimes. That said, day to day, the PMO does have more power in a majority government. Big law and order Republicans. Well, unless the law is applied to them, right? Shouldn't the anti-crime President step up and make the moral decision and hold Scooter accountible for his actions. I have a major moral issue with Presidential pardons, Clinton, Bush or otherwise. It's a riduclous concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Virtually nothing is entrenched in the constitution. Why are you arguing against the bleeding obvious? Are you suggesting that in real life, with a strong whip and strong party discipline, that the PMO is not far more powerful than the presidency? Surely not.Party disipline only has power as long as MPs believe that their political futures are better served by toeing the party line. If the PMO went nuts like the Bush adminstration has you would see the rank and file MPs use their power and depose the PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.