Clearly, you're challenged by simple questions. Who, within his "working administration", has Bush pardoned?

Now, if you can't answer it, that's fine, but at least be man enough to admit that you can't. Dodging and prancing around like you are makes you look silly.

Well, sillier...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Oh, and just for the record, the two members of Bush's administration which have been mentioned in this thread ar Gonzales and Libby.

Neither have been pardoned.

So, pray tell, what great insight is drawn, to which members of the administration who have been pardoned, by reading this thread?

Nevermind; don't answer. You look silly enough already...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

As one would expect, it's a distinction without a difference. That is why you didn't just post something like "libby wasn't pardoned, he had his sentence commuted". Because even you realize the commutation was used instead of the pardon only because a pardon would have left him no way to avoid testifying in front of congressional investigative committees.

I knew we could count on you to dodge the substance of this discussion to once again focus on irrelevancies. It is what you do.
Do you have anything to say that actually addresses the issues in this thread?

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

You can spin it any way you want; libs so often do.

But Libby was not pardoned. Period.

You might not like the fact that his sentence was commuted (actually, I'm not a fan of it, either), but for you to equate that with him being pardoned exhibits a profound level of ignorance...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I always wonder after reading your posts whether you could possibly be as illiterate as the content of your remark indicates or whether you are just pretending you didn't read or didn't understand my post. I'll play along and pretend that you really don't get it and try to explain this to you again.

The only difference between pardon and commutation in this case is that commutation gives libby immunity from congressional subpoena while pardon would have had libby sitting in front of a committee testifying the next day. In fact if Gonzales is ocnvicted he will probably also be commuted rather than pardoned (at least at first) for the same reason. Typically, you have ignored this in your post. Also typically (and repeatedly now) you have chosen to ignore the substance of this discussion in favor of focusing on irrelevant minutiae.

Here is something you might want to try. Go through this thread and for every mention of the word "pardon" substitute "commute" or "commutation". Then ask yourself if you have changed the gist of any of the sentences you altered. When you realize you have not, count how many posts you have wasted trying to make this "point" instead of actually dealing with the subject of the thread. Then ask yourself if anybody here is stupid enough to fall for such tricks and ask yourself whether it was worth humiliating yourself yet again to pull a stunt that has never worked before and which everyone here expects from you.

If you decide you actually want to discuss this issue that's fine. But if your only purpose is to continue to pretend stupidity I am no longer amused enough to go along.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

It's impossible to discuss why Libby was pardoned because he wasn't.

Why don't you just save us all a bunch of time and admit that you're one of those libs who are simply unable to accept that Libby wasn't pardoned.

There is a difference between commuting a sentence and granting a pardon. You can bitch and moan and piss and whine about why he wasn't pardoned, but your continued whining that he was pardoned, when he wasn't, makes you look profoundly ignorant...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

OK, so will Bush commute Gonzales's sentence?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Once again you have failed to read and understand the post you are supposedly responding to. Here - try it again.

The only difference between pardon and commutation in this case is that commutation gives libby immunity from congressional subpoena while pardon would have had libby sitting in front of a committee testifying the next day. In fact if Gonzales is ocnvicted he will probably also be commuted rather than pardoned (at least at first) for the same reason. Typically, you have ignored this in your post. Also typically (and repeatedly now) you have chosen to ignore the substance of this discussion in favor of focusing on irrelevant minutiae.

Here is something you might want to try. Go through this thread and for every mention of the word "pardon" substitute "commute" or "commutation". Then ask yourself if you have changed the gist of any of the sentences you altered. When you realize you have not, count how many posts you have wasted trying to make this "point" instead of actually dealing with the subject of the thread. Then ask yourself if anybody here is stupid enough to fall for such tricks and ask yourself whether it was worth humiliating yourself yet again to pull a stunt that has never worked before and which everyone here expects from you.

If you decide you actually want to discuss this issue that's fine. But if your only purpose is to continue to pretend stupidity I am no longer amused enough to go along.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

You know, your signature could not be more accurate.

Regardless of what the "difference" is between a pardon and having the sentence commuted is, the fact remains they are different. Trying to spin it into something it isn't is foolish and stupid.

But go ahead, it's what we've come to expect of you...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So, will Bush commute Gonzales's sentence?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

You'll forgive me if I wait and see if he's even charged with anything. I know such a concept is completely foreign to libs, but that's how it works...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Gonzales has already been sentenced?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

OK, IF Gonzales is convicted of perjury, will Bush give him a "get out of jail free" card?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Who knows - given we are only a year and some change from a new administration, and given that Gonzales has not even been charged yet, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Bush would not even be in office when and if Gonzales is convicted and subsequently sentenced.

It's pointless conjecture, fit only to facilitate partisan idiocy.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Wow, nice dodge! I never saw that coming.
You Bush worshippers are soooo clever.
Us Liberals just have no idea that you don't want to admit that you voted for a guy who feels that his whole crime organization is above the law.

There are six or seven instances where Gonzales's testimony "differed sharply" from that of other witnesses, much like the example in my signature.

Now either Alberto was committing perjury, or a dozen other people were.
So it's a case of he said, They said, and since Alberto is a member of the most dishonest administration in history, I'm going to think that the jury goes with They Said, He committed perjury.

As to it taking a year, I don't think so, the evidence is all there in black and white, they have a few hundred interviews to do, but that won't take that long, and then it goes before the Grand Jury.

But OK, I'll play your game and rephrase the question once again.

Will Bush commute Gonzales's perjury sentence OR pardon Gonzales?

That's what Daddy Bush did, he pardoned Caspar Weinberger, before the charges had even been filed.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address