>>Looks like Bush's pardons are all defensible<<
Zoltan, I have read enough of your posts to realize that even with the dark tint of your partisan lenses, you are too intelligent to actually believe that statement:
On what basis do you believe that GB Sr.'s pardon of the Pakastani heroin dealer was defensible, if so, on what ground?
You believe that the pardon of Armand Hammer had nothing to with the fact that a few months earlier Hammer had contributed $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle campaign and another $100,000 to the Republican Party?
washingtonpost.com
You believe that the Cox pardon had nothing to do with the fact that his father had donated $200,000 to Bush and the GOP, and $100,000 to the Bush Library Fund?
cnn.com
You believe that his pardon of an international terrorist was defensible, if so, on what ground?
nytimes.com
onlinejournal.com
And you believe that his pardon of Weinberger -- who had not yet faced trial -- had nothing to do with the fact that GW Sr.'s involvement was about to become an issue in the upcoming trial?
C'mon, Zoltan, send me a pm admitting that each of these pardons was questionable, and I will never again darken the doorway of this thread again. |
