i you seen that to

hummingbird

imo every president should be looked at when they leave office


who knows what evil lurks in the deeds and whims of these office holders

Potential pardons are typically reviewed and evaluated by the justice department. Something I am sure you will hear about during the confirmation hearings that will take place for our future Attorney General. However, who receives a presidential pardon is in the end determined by the president themselves.

There is a reason the presidential pardon exists and I do not advocate erasing the power. However, I do not believe any president should be allowed to issue blanket pardons before any investigation has been made or charges brought.

If Bush is allowed to do this then any president could do the same.

Simply act outside the law while in office, assert presidential privilege and then proactively issue pardons to anyone who might have been involved across the board when he or she walks out the door.

I have said this before here and I am saying it again. You may love Shrub but you won't love other presidents doing the same. Please no matter your party make this president accountable so that all presidents in future are as well.

no pardon should be honored if they have no charges

it is ludacris to say ok yer pardoned

when no charges or convictions have been given

that is like filling the gas tank

when the gas tank is not there

would create a hazardous spill situation

you mean like Ford and Nixon?

nixion had charges

but yeah like nixion

a president should not have the power to pardon those they are personally involved with

There was a difference with Nixon.

Despite his attempt to block the investigation there was an investigation of the Watergate burglary and the cover-up.

Ford's pardon did end any possibility of charges being brought against Nixon but we knew at least in part what his crimes were.

What President Clinton did could only be wrong IF Bush doesn't pardon as many as President Clinton did.



Liberal logic is awesome.

Again there is a difference between pardoning a specific person for an offense they have been convicted of and pardoning un-named un-investigated and untried individuals or groups of individuals.


Apparently that important distinction escapes some here.

There is?

How about this...

1998 Clinton gets approval to go to war with Iraq, but doesn't because the UN wants to try inspectors one more time.

March 2003 Bush orders the invasion of Iraq with overwhelming support from the US, Congress and the Senate.

May/June 2003 Democrats stop supporting the war in Iraq and claim to have never supported the war. Democrats claim that Bush lied (even though they had the same intelligence as the President had).

Now Bush is afraid that people who did the job that he, congress, the senate and the American people asked them to do will be put in prison for years...just for doing their job. So Bush feels the need to protect these innocent people.

Hind sight is always 20/20, but looking back it's still a bit fuzzy...

When I was a kid I was taught 2 wrongs dont make a right. I dont agree with pardoning anyone of alleged crimes. We put people in jail for a dime bag of a weed, but let people off for.....You can fill in the blank! BTW I disagreed with Clinton doing the same thing

that takes thinking

If you commit a crime "you must do the time" no matter who you are. Clinton was wrong and Bush will be too. Let some of those harmless potheads out and fill it back up..

Hey Temp...stay out of my Profile

I wonder if I could get a pardon? we are from the same home town after all

haha I just love revisionist history.


You seemed to leave out that pesky bit about Bush's lies like the factious yellow cake and his other supporting lies. Oh and the and the absence of the WMD

I don't subscribe to the childish school of he did it so I can do it too.

One more time...pardons are sometimes appropriate. However, there is a difference between pardoning someone after proper investigation and pardoning a person or classes of people for acts that are unidentified and un-investigated.

I suspect some here would see the distinction if the president taking this action was of a different party. Well...umm maybe not.

What the President said was true and the British government stands by that statement. Saddam tried to buy yellow cake uranium. Be a democrat. Hate the President. But at least be honest. Don't you have any self respect?

Spider.. all of the people on here blaming Bush need to read this...Section 8...Article 1...it's called the Constitution...sheesh !...in this case...scroll down to clause 11...

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.