| Author |
Message |
    
Nakaille
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 5:28 pm: |     |
I think they just don't care enough to cover it up as well as most of their peers. Honestly. And I don't think most people are stunned. Not the folks I talk to, anyway. Call me jaded but most of their lies really do seem like small potatoes to me.
Aren't there more important or interesting things in the world to think about? But then again, I never did like the soaps.
Bacata |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 8:58 pm: | |
If they had been more successful in covering their actions, it would have been okay?
"Small potatoes"?!
I wouldn't call you jaded. |
Tom
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:40 pm: | |
Have any of you read the two-part series in Harper's about Henry Kissinger, War Criminal? The Clinton follies are indeed small potatoes (though potatoes nonetheless). |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:57 am: | |
No, not okay, just business as usual!
Bacata |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 9:10 am: | |
Lseltz...
"Confused regarding Hillary's attitude, and she said that it was wrong for her brother to take money."
You're exactly right. HE'S A LAWYER. That's what he's supposed to do, and it happens all the time. Granted, you wouldn't approach him unless you had intentions of getting into the Oval Office because he's not exactly Johnny Cochran, but still- it is within his rights to collect a fee for legal advice!
But by blaming it on him, the dopey brother, Hillary takes the heat off Bill. Its Bill that made the boo-boo, and Hillary's poll numbers are going down the toilet as a result. If she blamed it on him outright, her numbers would plummet even more, just by association.
I'm sure the Clinton living room is a real, cozy, romantic place these days. |
Mck
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 10:49 am: | |
Enjoy this, my fellow recovering Clintonistas!
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=85000645 |
Pastorofmuppets
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 11:56 am: | |
This is what really gets me!
The whole two wrongs make a right thing.
Just because someone before clinton did something remotely like what he did (and it is remote..,. I'll get into that later) that makes Clinton actions OK. IT DOES NOT!
Look at all of these other pardons being thrown around... Nixon, Poindexter, Weinberger, and some herion dealer that GHWB pardoned. these are all different. Ford gave Nixon a clean slate to take the country out of the turmoil he caused... and that was a MAJOR SCANDAL at the time. Weinberger and poindexter were doing their jobs, and had the support (right or wrong... and probably wrong) of the beaurocracy in which they worked... they were made scapegoats for bad policy... the pardons fixed that. Maybe it was wrong, but an arguement can be made either way. The Heroin dealer that GHWB pardoned had thge support of the Justice dept, 3 senators from his home state, the parole board, and various other community leaders.
These are BIG differences from buying a pardon. especially when it is granted against the advice of the justice dept (which by the way supported the pardons of Weinberger and Poindexter). It is also different from doing family and friends a favor for the almighty dollar.
This is bribery, pure and simple... if you want, you can pretty it up and call it influemnce peddling, but at its root it is bribery.
It is not acceptable to just say "that is the way it is".
And I for one was not at all stunned by this... if you could rent the Lincoln bedroom for campaign donations, why not buy a pardon?
I would be stunned if it came to light that Another president (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush) did the same thing. But Clinton... it isn't even close to a suprise |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:50 pm: | |
Toad, thanks for the explanation, you're right; I'm new to Maplewood, and didn't know the procedure.
Kestrel, I'm sure that the job is horrendously difficult, and don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting the people who do it -- it just seems to me that the process and equipment needs revamping.
I come from a midwestern state where we experience frequent, heavy snowfall, rather than the occasional snowstorms that seem to paralyze this part of the country. Maybe it's because they have lots of practice, but the trucks are on the streets practically at the first sighting of a flake. Seems like some kind of a happy medium could be reached. One shouldn't have to return home during rush hour, after it's been snowing heavily all day, to the kind of conditions that we frequently do in Maplewood.
Konigen |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:54 pm: | |
Oh my...I'm so sorry! My last message about snow plowing was supposed to go under a different thread!!! I will respond on this one shortly...
Konigen (blushing) |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 1:26 pm: | |
Pastor, I agree with you that it's not right to say "that's the way it is". Again, across the board, I don't support lying.
However, I just can't excuse lying about Iran-Contra, especially if I'm going to point the finger of blame at Clinton. My question is, why aren't Reagan and Bush being prosecuted and persecuted for perjury? Why is Clinton the only one who's actually been held accountable? After all, in the grand scheme of things, who hurt this country more -- a president lying about a affair with an intern, or one lying about genocidal involvement?
I agree that buying pardons is wrong, however, whether that even occurred is yet to be determined. Perhaps it was even more criminal in an ethical sense that the Supreme Court even approved the pardons of Poindexter, et al.
Bush knew there was a wrongness about those pardons or he wouldn't have granted them in secrecy (no media, no photographs, etc.) at midnight on New Year's Eve.
You can't convince me that those pardons were proper because the Poindexter gang was "just following orders." Familiar argument that many war criminals would love to use, but can't, these days -- most recently in Yugoslavia (war crime convictions against serbs running mass rape camps). Those pardons were granted to protect the president himself from being dragged through the mud -- pretty slick move.
There appears to be one standard of ethical behavior for the Republicans and another for the Democrats these past 20 years. Who's better at getting away with unethical behavior? Clearly, the Republicans.
Konigen |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 1:33 pm: | |
My point exactly, Konigen. Thanks for clarifying.
Bacata |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 1:42 pm: | |
Bacata, totally with you on "Why was Nixon pardoned" Why indeed???
Tracks, doing away with pardons is a great idea. The power to pardon has been abused so much that accountability has been erased. No wonder so many people have difficulty with the concept of accountability -- heck, our presidents don't even practice it. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
When W's Dad pardoned some big shot oil swindlers not a word was said, (except by Ross Perot of all people) and Nixon pardoned Rebozo (mafia), so what is the big deal with Rich. He has raised and donated over a hundred million dollars to an ally (Israel), he has agreed to pay all taxes, penalties, etc if he is allowed back in the U.S. I would rather see him pardoned, get the $28,000,000 paid in back taxes, and move forward. Rich offered the same "deal" to the republicans. They said no based on Rudy Guiliani's opinion. I was glad that Nixon was pardoned to avoid the "turmoil that it was causing the country". Same reason that Bush should pardon Clinton and end this nonsens once and for all. |
Pastorofmuppets
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 3:51 pm: | |
I'm not saying that the pardons were "ethically" proper... but they did follow all of the proper procedures. Clintons pardons of Rich, Vignali, and others did not. By the way, I never said that this is illegal.
I don't really have a problem with pardoning Rich, except for the fact that he was a fugitive. I just believe that the proper protocols should be followed and it shouldn't matter how much you donate, it should be on the merits. The fact is that the merits never would have been considered if the donations weren't made. That is just plain wrong.
And Bush's pardons at midnight was to avoid a Democratic feeding frenzy (in case you forgot, it didn't work). These pardons were still 20 days before he left office, not the last day, and they didn't pay for the pardons, and come on, you know that these (Rich et al) were bought. ant they followed all protocols. As I remember it, there was great debate over whether they should be pardoned at all before the actual pardon. There was no closed door cover up.
I didn't mean that they (weinberger etc.) were just following orders, I was saying that they were made scapegoats for bad policy decision... they were the fall guys. All of government at the time was involved. Unfortunately you can't jail everyone.
Ford pardoned Nixon to try to heal the country, he may have been wrong to do so, but I truly believe that his motives were pure. He felt it was the right thing to do for America. The seventies were a really messed up time. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 5:04 pm: | |
The justice department was notified 14 months before Clinton left office to review the Rich case. They did not. Clinton never followed up either, but really, does proper protocol really make a difference with a Pardon?
And George Bush (daddy) did give pardons to a few big oil big wigs in Texas. His family made millions (30 to be exact) and those pardons basically went unquestioned.
Ronald Regan pardoned all the bank crooks except Keating.... and nobody said a word about the payoffs to the Republican National Party.
I said it before... Presidential Pardons as they currently exist are not good. The whole issue should be revisited as soon as Bush pardons Clinton. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page