This idea of even talking about Clinton as if this is relevant or exonerates the last six years of Bush is pathetic.

The Clinton that bugs me now is Hillary. At first she refused to answer the question about a pardon for Libby when asked at debate hosted by Cris Matthews/Hardball.

Now she's telling us how she'll handle things better in a year and a half. !! Ugh! I want her to DO SOMETHING! now.

And the thing to do, a real appropriate and powerful thing to do is to IMPEACH CHENEY. Court testimony from the Libby trial gave evidence that he's the guy behind all this. So he should be impeached just to demand he come before the public and be obliged to tell the truth.

All the Democratic's rea...

This idea of even talking about Clinton as if this is relevant or exonerates the last six years of Bush is pathetic.

The Clinton that bugs me now is Hillary. At first she refused to answer the question about a pardon for Libby when asked at debate hosted by Cris Matthews/Hardball.

Now she's telling us how she'll handle things better in a year and a half. !! Ugh! I want her to DO SOMETHING! now.

And the thing to do, a real appropriate and powerful thing to do is to IMPEACH CHENEY. Court testimony from the Libby trial gave evidence that he's the guy behind all this. So he should be impeached just to demand he come before the public and be obliged to tell the truth.

All the Democratic's reasons for why not do an impeachment are also pathetic and they have one flacid excuse after another.

I don't care if the impeachment fails. I don't care if a fillibuster stalls it: IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. IT MUST HAPPEN. IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAPPEN.

The only previous Clinton thought I have that if they can impeach a guy for having consenual sex with an adult then it seems that the possibility that a guy mislead a nation into war using deliberate lies and attempted to cover up the lies is Far More Serious.

All talks and all efforts on this are good. I sign some of these petitions. My small groups ideas (with links to these other groups, also) are at: http://www.americancitizenstogether.org

Oh, nappy....
Simmer down. LOL All it would take to impeach is a few folks with an agenda. That was proved with Clinton. I'm not a huge Clinton fan (either one), but I really didn't think a few consensual blow jobs were a reason for impeachment.
Now, I'll get shot down from both right and left for this one, but if a
blowjob was an impeachable offense, why wasn't JFK impeached? Because
we were more tolerant of sexuality, and this country was more sexist
then. It was pretty much accepted and understood that men cheat.
Neither was the good ol' lie. The stupid rhetoric I hear bandied about that "it wasn't the sex, it was the lie" doesn't hold any more water than a paper bag, eith...

Oh, nappy....
Simmer down. LOL All it would take to impeach is a few folks with an agenda. That was proved with Clinton. I'm not a huge Clinton fan (either one), but I really didn't think a few consensual blow jobs were a reason for impeachment.
Now, I'll get shot down from both right and left for this one, but if a
blowjob was an impeachable offense, why wasn't JFK impeached? Because
we were more tolerant of sexuality, and this country was more sexist
then. It was pretty much accepted and understood that men cheat.
Neither was the good ol' lie. The stupid rhetoric I hear bandied about that "it wasn't the sex, it was the lie" doesn't hold any more water than a paper bag, either. Even the staunchest Bush supporter can find numerous examples of his lies, regardless of BS justifications. If anyone doesn't think that all politicians are liars, they should pull their heads out of the sand.
And maybe all the clippers and commenters who can do nothing but attack the "other" side, should do the same thing. Start discussing instead of attacking. Am I the only one who has noticed that there are alot of "clippers" who clip nothing but love to comment?? Firestarters... Sometimes I wonder how many of them are pseudousernyms for other clippers...

So his judgment should override a jury's judgment? We are not talking about jury that was unbalanced in anyway shape or form, a simple jury of his peers found him guilty, if that is not enough then the President should pardon anyone convicted of any crime for any reason, with justification what so ever. That to me a recipe for abuse and disaster.

As for reigning in the pardon power, it would appear that your on the column that the President should have more power(s) not less. That may be something that you and a lot of people may come to regret, when the shoe is on the other foot.

As for your one word answer of "Objective" that I don't get...

And your final answer invalidates all the answ...

So his judgment should override a jury's judgment? We are not talking about jury that was unbalanced in anyway shape or form, a simple jury of his peers found him guilty, if that is not enough then the President should pardon anyone convicted of any crime for any reason, with justification what so ever. That to me a recipe for abuse and disaster.

As for reigning in the pardon power, it would appear that your on the column that the President should have more power(s) not less. That may be something that you and a lot of people may come to regret, when the shoe is on the other foot.

As for your one word answer of "Objective" that I don't get...

And your final answer invalidates all the answers you gave before. If someone should not abuse his powers then when they are abused he should face the consequences. One or the other, you can't have both.

"So his judgment should override a jury's judgment? We are not talking about jury that was unbalanced in anyway shape or form, a simple jury of his peers found him guilty"

It does override the jury's judgement, and the constitution was set up that way. That power was given to the President from day one, and it never required nor suggested the need for the possibility that the jury was biased or wrong. As a matter of fact the framers made most of their arguments for this power under the assumption the jury was correct.

"if that is not enough then the President should pardon anyone convicted of any crime for any reason, with justification what so ever."

What a ridiculous arguement. S...

"So his judgment should override a jury's judgment? We are not talking about jury that was unbalanced in anyway shape or form, a simple jury of his peers found him guilty"

It does override the jury's judgement, and the constitution was set up that way. That power was given to the President from day one, and it never required nor suggested the need for the possibility that the jury was biased or wrong. As a matter of fact the framers made most of their arguments for this power under the assumption the jury was correct.

"if that is not enough then the President should pardon anyone convicted of any crime for any reason, with justification what so ever."

What a ridiculous arguement. So I wont even entertain it with a reasoned response.

"As for reigning in the pardon power, it would appear that your on the column that the President should have more power(s) not less. That may be something that you and a lot of people may come to regret, when the shoe is on the other foot."

Sigh, the president was given this power from the first day the constitution was signed. So I'm not for more power or less power for the president, I am for the power the constitution has granted him from day one.

"As for your one word answer of "Objective" that I don't get..."

Everyone can have a different view on what is abuse.

"And your final answer invalidates all the answers you gave before."

Uh no.

"If someone should not abuse his powers then when they are abused he should face the consequences."

Sigh, duh again. There can be POLITCAL consequnces if he abuses his power to grant pardons. There can not be any LEGAL consequnces unless the constitution is changed. As I already indicated.