Sunday, July 08, 2007

Well the neo-cons are at it again!!

This time they are comparing the pardon of Mark Rich by Clinton to the commutation of Scooter Libby by Bush. Their argument is that Clinton did it why shouldn't Bush? As usual their comparisons and arguments don't hold up.

Some differences between the two cases are:

1 - Rich didn't jeopardize national security; Libby did

2 - Rich didn't place the lives of operatives that Valerie Plame dealt with in jeopardy (we still don't know if her exposure by Libby caused deaths); Libby did

3 - Rich was never convicted of a crime...he was INDICTED on charges of tax evasion and suspicion of having conducted illegal trades with Iran at the time of the Iran Hostage crisis

One thing I find interesting about this case is that Scooter Libby represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000 and supported the pardon. As a matter of fact in a letter to the NY Times Clinton noted that Libby was one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.

No comments: