Tuesday, February 12, 2008

A Terrible Reminder of the Clinton Pardons

Debra Burlingame has a devastating piece on the Clinton pardons of the FALN terrorists.

It will dismissed by the Clinton campaign as old news. It is. And it is still awful to read that a U.S. President would pardon 16 terrorists responsible for the maiming and deaths of N.Y.C. police officers and civilians if only to get his wife the support of a few Hispanic politicians for her senate run.

Clinton fans, look away, look away.

UPDATE: Corrected 19 to 16 terrorists.

Reminds of Sarah Silverman's gag about correcting her niece's assertion that Hitler killed 60 million Jews.
It was six million, Sarah corrects her.
What difference does it make? Six million or 60?
60 million, Sarah explains, would be "unforgivable."
Funny, huh?

6 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Another apology for Democratic softness toward terrorists from David Diablo.

He sure is making a habit of this.

"Conspiracy to do XYZ is not the same as actually doing XYZ."

I can't even imagine Osama bin Laden's lawyer making the same argument.

"Your honor, my client was in Afghanistan when the planes struck the World Trade Center. He didn't fly any of the planes personally."

Wow.

February 13, 2008 at 7:08 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 13, 2008 at 10:22 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

While Diablo plays lap dog for the Clinton spin machine, not even the relatively liberal New Republic, can avoid puking at the memory of the FALN pardons.

Writes TNR's James Kirchick:

"If there is only one article that you read today -- or this week -- make it Debra Burlingame's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It concerns the pardon that President Clinton handed out to 16 members of FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group that was resonsible for a string of armed robberies as well as 146 bombings that killed 9 people and injured hundreds in its quixotic fight for independence from the United States. Some 25 years before another, far more devastating terrorist attack on Lower Manhattan, FALN planted a bomb in the Fraunces Tavern restaurant which detonated during lunch-hour, killing 4 and injuring 60, it's most infamous and deadly attack.

"This was truly the sleaziest of Clinton's pardons (which is saying something). But it lacked the glitz and intrigue of the Marc Rich pardon, and perhaps for that reason, it is among the less notorious. But the FALN pardon was indisputably the worst. Rich, after all, was just another example of money corrupting politics. The FALN pardon was far worse; it represented nothing less than the surrender of American honor and prestige to terrorists for political gain. Its effect -- in the midst of the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers et. al. -- was to confirm Osama bin Laden's declaration two years later that the United States was a "weak horse." 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney all opposed the pardon. Even the terrorists themselves -- who, after all, did not recognize the legal jurisdiction of the United States (the reason why they waged war against it) -- did not request the pardon.  

How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason -- the only reason -- that the pardon was ever granted. She had a senate race to win, after all, in a state with over 1 million Spanish-speaking voters. Characteristic of White House thinking at the time was an email sent by an adviser concluding that the pardons would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)."

One can already imagine the attack ads that the McCain campaign and the RNC are devising right now, if they haven't produced them already. God forbid Hillary wins the nomination, they will be a welcome addition to the public discussion about who Hillary Clinton is and what ultimately drives her, lest anyone genuinely believe she's in this because "It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together." 

I should admit at this point that I've been largely ambivalent about the Democratic primary, and have never understood the Hillary-hatred that drives the right. But, after reading Burlingame's piece, how can anyone trust the Clintons in power? To use one of Hillary's rhetorical flourishes when she questioned the honesty of General David Petraeus last year, that this woman would claim to be tougher than Barack Obama in dealing with America's Islamist enemies when she and her husband sold out the country and its honor to a bunch of two-bit, Hispanic terrorists "requires the willing suspension of disblief."

Hey, I told Clinton lovers to look away. Can't say I didn't warn you.

February 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Diablo: Conspiracy doesn't carry the same penalty? Too bad you aren't a prosecutor who prosecutes crimes in this area. I have clients who are doing life in jail for conspiracy to commit murder. You are just a stupid liberal!

February 13, 2008 at 10:27 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

LOL! <- with Anon & Gil and at Silly Dave.

Slick Willie should have been hanged. That the Left continues to worship him is very telling.

February 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home