>>>>>I never said he was "clean." I have said repeatedly in this thread that his pardon of Marc Rich was an abomination. But that isn't the subject, no matter how often some try to change it. The subject is President Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby. What is your opinion about that? Would you like to be the first to defend it?
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, it would be more impressive if you referenced the web site(s) where you got your "evidence." Grabbing a few statements of opinion (with an obvious POV) off the internet, without attribution, doesn't prove much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, I know, but I was in a hurry. There are actually more that he pardoned who were connected to hillary or her kin. He also pardoned his brother for a crime he'd already done time for, as I recall.
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy is a good link. It provides a lot of information that will make you downright proud to call yourself a Democrat. I'll also try to find the article I heard about that shows over 80% of the felons in the us are Democrats (even after an adjustment for race). Yeah buddy! I think I know why they use a jackazz for a mascot.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801366.html
>>>
>>>Well at least there are considerable amount of doubt about Libby being "guilty" as charged. But are there any doubt about the guilt of those that Clinton pardoned?
>>
>>
>>The jury wasn't in much doubt. They reached their verdict in a matter of hours.
>>
>>Oh wait, they were part of a left wing conspiracy....
>
>For the record I personally have very little doubt Libby was guilty of exactly what they charged him with. I just don't care if he goes to jail for it. I think the insistence that somebody from the Bush administration actually go to jail is scalp hunting - a common Washington sport but one in which I don't really have a team to cheer for <s>
>
>Of course, I don't see jail as a very appropriate place for anyone not convicted of behavior that risks the safety of others ( and no, I don't think 'outing' Plame put her in any danger whatsoever, where I do think a lot of FIA requests for stuff that reveals sources and methods does in fact do that as does a lot of press activity under the "public's right to know")


In general I do believe the public has a right to know and the press has a right to report most of what it finds out. Keep in mind that government officials often try to suppress news not for security reasons but simply because it will make them look bad. We are in agreement that information that would jeopardize secret operations or clandestine personnel should not be published. Hopefully that does not happen often, and inadvertently when it does.

I have little sympathy for public officials who want to conduct all their business without any transparency or oversight. They are in fact answerable to the public -- public servants, if that hasn't become too quaint a phrase. Secrecy should be the exception, not the rule. Obviously Cheney & Co. disagree with me about this.