Which side is more moral now?

[Big]

“Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct,” declared Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority Leader, a stance echoed by other Congressional Democrats, editorial writers and bloggers on the left.

On the right, The Wall Street Journal thundered in an editorial today, “The time for a pardon is now” — a point of view shared by The Weekly Standard, The National Review and conservative admirers and friends of Mr. Libby. Many of the calls for his pardon demanded immediate action, instead of a wait for appeals to wend their way through the courts.

www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07cnd-pardon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[bonniej2]

That'd be too blatent, to pardon him now. Bush will make him suffer and go through the appeals - take the fall. He'll promise him something or other down the road.

[satiev1]

Well even if he won't pardon him, Libby might only get 2 years without the pardon, so it's not a big deal.

[ugly]

Libby shouldnt get a pardon. Where the f*%* is the accountability in this nation, if Bush pardons him it shows what weve all known, that he is a complete douche bag.

[JensenS]

He'll pardon him on his way out, just like Clinton, his father, and other Presidents have done.

[Donkey]

ugly said:

Libby shouldnt get a pardon. Where the f*%* is the accountability in this nation, if Bush pardons him it shows what weve all known, that he is a complete douche bag.

were you also disgusted when clinton pardoned his man on his way out of the WH?

[ugly]

Refresh my memory of what happened

[Donkey]

look it up yourself and you will find yourself a stinking hypocrite like I already didn't know.

[Big]

Clinton pardoned a woman, not a man. She was jailed for REFUSING to testify regarding his Monika affair I think. He pardoned her AFTER she served her time in prison.

She said she mainly refused to testify because THEY as she put it wanted her to lie.

[ugly]

If it is as Big says then I dont care that Clinton pardoned her especially if she served time. The fact is you shouldnt get out of jail for simply knowing the President.

[Big]

Sorry, just read about it. She was pardoned for refusing to testify about a failed Whitewater development project that had criminal affairs and Clintons invested in it in the 80s but not enough evidence was found.


Clinton also pardoned many small time criminals on fraud and tax evasion stuff. Most of them served time already or were never charged with a crime.

[FloggingSully]

Why would someone who was never charged get pardoned? Don't you have to be convicted to get pardoned?

[Flop the Nuts]

Clinton also pardoned Mark Rich, among others.

But, to answer your question of "Which side is more moral now?", I would say neither. If you vote for a party because you think one side is more moral, then you're making a mistake. Both parties are full of pompous windbags that you shouldn't trust. I wouldn't trust my neighbor with my money, so why should I trust my government with my money? You should vote for whichever party (or candidate) you believe has better ideas.

The left believes in the full right of a woman to grind up and abort babies, and the right tends to believe that going to war can quickly solve problems. Both involve the killing of innocent, whether on purpose or by accident. You may have other examples.

I agree with the right much more than the left, so I vote Republican the majority of the time. I don't tell myself that the republicans are more moral though.

[Big]

floggingsully said:

Why would someone who was never charged get pardoned? Don't you have to be convicted to get pardoned?

This way no more evidence can be used against them in the future.