Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget.

[pilferk]

Just a quick point about the Clinton pardons:

First off, if memory serves, Clinton's administration was the first under which DETAILED (name, date of pardon, and crime for which pardon was issued) stats on pardons were required to be kept since 1933.? There are certainly stats AVAILABLE from other presidents, but they were not REQUIRED to keep them, so the details of many of the pardons are not readily available.? So it's not as if we have a whole lot to compare Clinton's list of pardons to in the halls of history......

In addition, Clintons list of pardons, on his "last day" is notably long because, reportedly, he did not want to go down as being the president with the LEAST number of pardons in the modern era.? "Special application rules" were even established to help aid those filing for clemency to speed up the process.? He had FAR fewer grants of clemency during his actual term (that is, not including the 140 grants on his "last day") than many, if not any, president in the modern era.  In addition, he expressed frustration, in the days leading up to the end of his 2nd term with the Judicial Review committee that did the review of all clemency applications.

Also, one must realize, there is a documented process for review of clemency cases and, in most cases, the "recommendation" for clemency comes from either the Attorney General OR the Judicial Review committee.

In other words...singling out Clinton on those pardons may not be entirely fair.....

Here's some info you all might find interesting:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

[Surfrider]

In addition, Clintons list of pardons, on his "last day" is notably long because, reportedly, he did not want to go down as being the president with the LEAST number of pardons in the modern era.?

Seems like a good reason to pardon criminals.  I'll give it to Bill though, always thinking of the history books.

[Charity Case]

Just a quick point about the Clinton pardons:

First off, if memory serves, Clinton's administration was the first under which DETAILED (name, date of pardon, and crime for which pardon was issued) stats on pardons were required to be kept since 1933.? There are certainly stats AVAILABLE from other presidents, but they were not REQUIRED to keep them, so the details of many of the pardons are not readily available.? So it's not as if we have a whole lot to compare Clinton's list of pardons to in the halls of history......

In addition, Clintons list of pardons, on his "last day" is notably long because, reportedly, he did not want to go down as being the president with the LEAST number of pardons in the modern era.? "Special application rules" were even established to help aid those filing for clemency to speed up the process.? He had FAR fewer grants of clemency during his actual term (that is, not including the 140 grants on his "last day") than many, if not any, president in the modern era.? In addition, he expressed frustration, in the days leading up to the end of his 2nd term with the Judicial Review committee that did the review of all clemency applications.

Also, one must realize, there is a documented process for review of clemency cases and, in most cases, the "recommendation" for clemency comes from either the Attorney General OR the Judicial Review committee.

In other words...singling out Clinton on those pardons may not be entirely fair.....

Here's some info you all might find interesting:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

A president can pardon anyone he wants for any reason he wants and most president's pardon a bunch of people on their way out.? If he does it on his own or on the Attorney General's suggestion, he is still the one who does it.  You can do an internet search to find who Bush Sr. pardoned, Reagan, etc.?

How can you even try to defend clinton on this?? He pardoned MArc Rich for god's sake.  It is well known fact that he and he alone pardoned these people.? Don't you think if there was a check and balance on this issue within our government that most of those criminals wouldn't have been pardoned?  Getting suggestions from the Attorney's General's office is not a check or balance at all.? Look at the list for christ's sake!? Look at the people he pardoned and the crimes they committed!? How can you possibly defend it?? The better response would have been to say "yea, you're right, he is a sleaze bag for making pardons of that kind".

You claim to be independent, but I have never seen you post a conservative view point once here and you even go as far as to defend leftest wingnuts like slc and now you defend clinton's pardons.? I have a new flash for you...you are a liberal as much as I am a conservative except that I can see when a mistake is made and own up to it.  Pardoning most of the people on that list was a mistake...kind of like lying to a grand jury except not illegal.

[pilferk]

Just a quick point about the Clinton pardons:

First off, if memory serves, Clinton's administration was the first under which DETAILED (name, date of pardon, and crime for which pardon was issued) stats on pardons were required to be kept since 1933.? There are certainly stats AVAILABLE from other presidents, but they were not REQUIRED to keep them, so the details of many of the pardons are not readily available.? So it's not as if we have a whole lot to compare Clinton's list of pardons to in the halls of history......

In addition, Clintons list of pardons, on his "last day" is notably long because, reportedly, he did not want to go down as being the president with the LEAST number of pardons in the modern era.? "Special application rules" were even established to help aid those filing for clemency to speed up the process.? He had FAR fewer grants of clemency during his actual term (that is, not including the 140 grants on his "last day") than many, if not any, president in the modern era.? In addition, he expressed frustration, in the days leading up to the end of his 2nd term with the Judicial Review committee that did the review of all clemency applications.

Also, one must realize, there is a documented process for review of clemency cases and, in most cases, the "recommendation" for clemency comes from either the Attorney General OR the Judicial Review committee.

In other words...singling out Clinton on those pardons may not be entirely fair.....

Here's some info you all might find interesting:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

A president can pardon anyone he wants for any reason he wants and most president's pardon a bunch of people on their way out.? If he does it on his own or on the Attorney General's suggestion, he is still the one who does it.? You can do an internet search to find who Bush Sr. pardoned, Reagan, etc.?

How can you even try to defend clinton on this?? He pardoned MArc Rich for god's sake.? It is well known fact that he and he alone pardoned these people.? Don't you think if there was a check and balance on this issue within our government that most of those criminals wouldn't have been pardoned?? Getting suggestions from the Attorney's General's office is not a check or balance at all.? Look at the list for christ's sake!? Look at the people he pardoned and the crimes they committed!? How can you possibly defend it?? The better response would have been to say "yea, you're right, he is a sleaze bag for making pardons of that kind".

You claim to be independent, but I have never seen you post a conservative view point once here and you even go as far as to defend leftest wingnuts like slc and now you defend clinton's pardons.? I have a new flash for you...you are a liberal as much as I am a conservative except that I can see when a mistake is made and own up to it.? Pardoning most of the people on that list was a mistake...kind of like lying to a grand jury except not illegal.

1st off, on my posting...you haven't looked hard enough.? I said, just the other day, I'd vote for McCain over Hillary.?There are others scattered throughout my posts. The reason MOST of my posts are "liberal" (not true, they just agree with the liberal view) is because we tend to discuss the issues on which I agree with the liberal viewpoint.? We don't tend to discuss fiscal conservativism here because, well, those issues tend to be boring, esoteric, and not remotely as sensational.? I've said it before, and I'll say it again:? On social policy, I tend to be agree with the libs.? On fiscal policy, the conservatives.? On foreign policy, it's been a toss up before GW.? For this administration, I've disagreed with much more of his foreign policy, and, well, he hasn't really been very fiscally conservative (he's spending more than any Democrat in office ever did...and that's even excluding the costs of the war) AND I disagree with his social policy.? So, while not a "liberal", I'm not real enamored of this president's administration, especially after 2002.  FYI, there are a number of Republicans who feel the same way (McCain being one of them).

On defending SLC, I think that's not exactly true.? I HAVE defended him but I've also disagreed with him, occasionally, and said so.? We just tend not to get into contentious debates about it.

Second, I'm not defending Clinton's pardons.? I'm giving you some background on the clemency procedures and some reasoning WHY Clinton's "last day" list might have been so unusually long.

Some of the claims you make, for instance, are directly refuted in the links I gave:?

You CAN NOT get a complete lists of Bush or Reagan (or Nixon, or Carter's) pardons.? You can get a small list of "notables" but not the complete list.? There hasn't been a complete list of pardons, from ANY President, since the 30's.?

It also explains that EVERY pardon/clemency issue goes through an application process.? Every one.? Part of that process is a board of Judicial Review, and a review by the Attorney General.? You are right that the president, ultimately, makes the final decision.

It IS unusual for a president to have THAT extensive a list of pardons "on his way out".? The links I provided support that.

I don't particuarly like Mr. Clintons list of pardons BUT I'm also not willing to condemn the guy as any more of a sleezebag than the rest of our presedents in the modern era without having any comparable data.? ? It's called having a bit of perspective on the issue.

[shades]

McCain is not a conservative.
hes a liberal in Independants clothing.

And heres some advice, quit defending Clinton.
The man was, is, and always will be an assclown.
His whole legacy is a cartoon. Think about it.

[gilld1]

As opposed to Bush being a joke?

[Rain]

McCain is not a conservative.
hes a liberal in Independants clothing.

And heres some advice, quit defending Clinton.
The man was, is, and always will be an assclown.
His whole legacy is a cartoon. Think about it.

Alright ... look who's talking !!! 

[SLCPUNK]

McCain is not a conservative.
hes a liberal in Independants clothing.

And heres some advice, quit defending Clinton.
The man was, is, and always will be an assclown.
His whole legacy is a cartoon. Think about it.

Alright ... look who's talking !!! 

[pilferk]

McCain is not a conservative.
hes a liberal in Independants clothing.

And heres some advice, quit defending Clinton.
The man was, is, and always will be an assclown.
His whole legacy is a cartoon. Think about it.

Again, falling back on the old debate standard:

Prove it.

Prove every line.

Otherwise, call it opinion (and unfounded, baseless opinion, at that) and move on.

You won't be able to offer any proof, however because:

1) McCain IS a conservative.? He's just not an ultra right wing conservative.? He's an "old school" conservative, more in line with Regan than with GW.? But for those of you ultra right wing liberal hating conservs, I can understand how his bipartisanship could be a bit scary for you.

2) Clinton was not an "assclown".? You might not like the guy, from a moral standpoint, but you can't deny his administration had it's successes.? But again, I'm not surprised the ultra right wing liberal hating sect refuses to acknowledge his contributions and ONLY focus on his failures.

3) You can't prove I'm defending Clinton, because, well, I'm not.? I'm adding context to the discussion.? I'd define what that means for you but, as I said before, I've done so much research for you of late I should be getting paid for it.? I already said I wasn't thrilled with Clintons list of pardons, but am reluctant to harp on the guy about them without comparable evidence from other administrations. How is that "defending" him?

[darknemus]

People love to bash Clinton.

I rather enjoyed the economy and the general 'vibe' in the Country under Clinton.  By the way, I've seen the man speak live.  Bush simply isn't in the same league.  Clinton managed to go for over an hour with no 3x5's, no teleprompter, no anything except for delivering his message, on point.  And then he accepted unscripted questions from the audience.  (I know they were unscripted, because one of mine was answered).  Sorry, I just much prefer an intellectual giant running things than Alfred E. Neumann.  And by the way, this is without factoring politics into it AT ALL.  I'd think Bush was a freaking idiot if he was a Democrat, too.  It scares me how uninformed and unknowledgable he is.  And it should very well scare you, too.  I'd rather unstable Jack Bauer after a dose of heroin have his finger on the 'button' than Bush.

Oh, and heya, Pilferk!

-darknemus

[pilferk]

People love to bash Clinton.

I rather enjoyed the economy and the general 'vibe' in the Country under Clinton.? By the way, I've seen the man speak live.? Bush simply isn't in the same league.? Clinton managed to go for over an hour with no 3x5's, no teleprompter, no anything except for delivering his message, on point.? And then he accepted unscripted questions from the audience.? (I know they were unscripted, because one of mine was answered).? Sorry, I just much prefer an intellectual giant running things than Alfred E. Neumann.? And by the way, this is without factoring politics into it AT ALL.? I'd think Bush was a freaking idiot if he was a Democrat, too.? It scares me how uninformed and unknowledgable he is.? And it should very well scare you, too.? I'd rather unstable Jack Bauer after a dose of heroin have his finger on the 'button' than Bush.

Oh, and heya, Pilferk!

-darnemus

Heya dark...noticed you'd been making it back to these parts a bit more often.