Fox featured a lively debate between two relatively unknown Congressmen. While neither Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-My) nor Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Ut) enjoy broad national recognition both demonstrated the political skills that justify further national exposure.
The topic was the Scooter Libby commutation and the Democrats attacked. Van Hollen argued that the commutation was political. What can we say, of course it was; that is what you get when you control the White House folks.
Cannon counter attacked with two points. First, the Clinton pardons, particularly Marc Rich, were far worse. Second, the prosecution was the by-product of a system that simply goes out of control. Van Hollen conceded the first. Quite rightly Van Hollen simply argued that the conviction was serious and merited serious punishment.
Cannon then raised our very best argument. Applying the same standards to the same case, why have Valarie Plame and Joe Wilson not been prosecuted for making conflicting statements while testifying under oath before Congress? Van Hollen had no answer.
The topic then returned to the US Attorneys. Cannon challenged Van Hollen to identify a single corrupt prosecution that was instigated or terminated and, of course, none was identified. Van Hollen threw out New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias, without details of course. The details hardly bespeak corruption in Iglesias’ termination.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra addressed the terror issues in a serious matter. He identified the nature of the risks. Hoekstra also shared something very important, exposing more Democrat hypocrisy, about the intensified interrogation techniques. Apparently, the Bush Administration provides bi-partisan briefing on when we employ that special Jack Bauer touch to captured terrorists and the valuable information that we obtain from them subsequent to their very own “24” experience. So every time a Democrat complains about "torture" remember they are willing to surrender the valuable information we now know they know we obtain from the techniques of which they complain. Do you agree?
Hoekstra is a very sharp and serious spokesman for our side. His critique of Democrat complaints about the Libby commutation was tremendous. Hoekstra asked why the investigation continued one minute beyond the point at which the prosecutor determined that no underlying crime had been committed. Remember, before Libby was ever questioned, Fitzgerald knew that Plame’s name was merely revealed, not linked, both by operation of law because Plame was no longer a confidential agent and of fact because Richard Armitage did not know she was confidential, if she was, because her role in the CIA was widely known.
Hoekstra also emphasized the need for victory in Iraq by focusing on the consequences of defeat or retreat. Hoekstra makes the very clear point that it is impossible to distinguish between an anti Al Qaeda campaign and our current effort in Iraq on a factual basis because Iraq is simply a part, albeit a large part, of the larger WoT. How do we know the psycho group with whom the bad guys are affiliated until we catch them? Republicans have mistakenly assumed that the public understands that the cost of victory can only be measured against the cost of defeat. Hoekstra makes that equation clear and the liberals never answer, they just cite casualty numbers. Hoekstra was great this morning. We need him to develop a much higher national profile.
Bill Kristol noticed that some fight is returning to the Bush bull elephant pachyderm, using the fight over pardons as an example. People like me love to talk about the money machine that operated out of the pardon desk in the Clinton White House. The President was far more political and partisan in his radio address yesterday. Maybe W has another campaign left in him after all.
Kristol also demonstrated the opportunity that the British terror attacks and the attempts by some of those terrorists to enter the US provide for us to discuss the viability and necessity of the President’s security measures, like intercepting Al Q’aeda telephone calls to and from the United States. Maybe now is the time to start correcting the Juan Williams of the world when they say, “thank God we haven’t been attacked”. They need to add some gratitude for George W. Bush for success in preventing those attacks.
Juan Williams reiterated all of the Dem positions on Libby. All were easily answered and one, in particular backfired. Even Mara Liasson responded emphatically that Marc Rich was a fugitive when Clinton pardoned him in response to Juan’s criticism the President for disregarding DoJ requirements for exhaustion of legal remedies before the administration of Presidential clemency.
Fred Barnes also engaged in the commutation debate with zeal. Fred compared Libby’s disputed recollection about a non-crime with the legal treatment of Sandy Berger, who stole and destroyed highly classified national archival documents and served no jail time, and that Bill Clinton, who accepted a criminal plea agreement that admitted perjury and obstruction of justice in exchange for avoiding indictment following the admissions. Yes, today’s Sunday talk shows Presidential pardons to be a unifying debate that we want to have.
One more time-Bring it On!!!!
The topic was the Scooter Libby commutation and the Democrats attacked. Van Hollen argued that the commutation was political. What can we say, of course it was; that is what you get when you control the White House folks.
Cannon counter attacked with two points. First, the Clinton pardons, particularly Marc Rich, were far worse. Second, the prosecution was the by-product of a system that simply goes out of control. Van Hollen conceded the first. Quite rightly Van Hollen simply argued that the conviction was serious and merited serious punishment.
Cannon then raised our very best argument. Applying the same standards to the same case, why have Valarie Plame and Joe Wilson not been prosecuted for making conflicting statements while testifying under oath before Congress? Van Hollen had no answer.
The topic then returned to the US Attorneys. Cannon challenged Van Hollen to identify a single corrupt prosecution that was instigated or terminated and, of course, none was identified. Van Hollen threw out New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias, without details of course. The details hardly bespeak corruption in Iglesias’ termination.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra addressed the terror issues in a serious matter. He identified the nature of the risks. Hoekstra also shared something very important, exposing more Democrat hypocrisy, about the intensified interrogation techniques. Apparently, the Bush Administration provides bi-partisan briefing on when we employ that special Jack Bauer touch to captured terrorists and the valuable information that we obtain from them subsequent to their very own “24” experience. So every time a Democrat complains about "torture" remember they are willing to surrender the valuable information we now know they know we obtain from the techniques of which they complain. Do you agree?
Hoekstra is a very sharp and serious spokesman for our side. His critique of Democrat complaints about the Libby commutation was tremendous. Hoekstra asked why the investigation continued one minute beyond the point at which the prosecutor determined that no underlying crime had been committed. Remember, before Libby was ever questioned, Fitzgerald knew that Plame’s name was merely revealed, not linked, both by operation of law because Plame was no longer a confidential agent and of fact because Richard Armitage did not know she was confidential, if she was, because her role in the CIA was widely known.
Hoekstra also emphasized the need for victory in Iraq by focusing on the consequences of defeat or retreat. Hoekstra makes the very clear point that it is impossible to distinguish between an anti Al Qaeda campaign and our current effort in Iraq on a factual basis because Iraq is simply a part, albeit a large part, of the larger WoT. How do we know the psycho group with whom the bad guys are affiliated until we catch them? Republicans have mistakenly assumed that the public understands that the cost of victory can only be measured against the cost of defeat. Hoekstra makes that equation clear and the liberals never answer, they just cite casualty numbers. Hoekstra was great this morning. We need him to develop a much higher national profile.
Bill Kristol noticed that some fight is returning to the Bush bull elephant pachyderm, using the fight over pardons as an example. People like me love to talk about the money machine that operated out of the pardon desk in the Clinton White House. The President was far more political and partisan in his radio address yesterday. Maybe W has another campaign left in him after all.
Kristol also demonstrated the opportunity that the British terror attacks and the attempts by some of those terrorists to enter the US provide for us to discuss the viability and necessity of the President’s security measures, like intercepting Al Q’aeda telephone calls to and from the United States. Maybe now is the time to start correcting the Juan Williams of the world when they say, “thank God we haven’t been attacked”. They need to add some gratitude for George W. Bush for success in preventing those attacks.
Juan Williams reiterated all of the Dem positions on Libby. All were easily answered and one, in particular backfired. Even Mara Liasson responded emphatically that Marc Rich was a fugitive when Clinton pardoned him in response to Juan’s criticism the President for disregarding DoJ requirements for exhaustion of legal remedies before the administration of Presidential clemency.
Fred Barnes also engaged in the commutation debate with zeal. Fred compared Libby’s disputed recollection about a non-crime with the legal treatment of Sandy Berger, who stole and destroyed highly classified national archival documents and served no jail time, and that Bill Clinton, who accepted a criminal plea agreement that admitted perjury and obstruction of justice in exchange for avoiding indictment following the admissions. Yes, today’s Sunday talk shows Presidential pardons to be a unifying debate that we want to have.
One more time-Bring it On!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment