in the Political Video forum, thinking that some really knowledgeable DUer would point me to a great article, or give me a synopsis of this situation. Yes it is the toe-sucker in chief on the film, and I took that into account when I first watched it.
It turned into quite a conversation, over there. Totally unexpected on my part. Not terribly productive, I must say, but that is DU sometimes. At first I felt really bad, and apologized - I am still sorry I offended people with the video, but I am no longer sorry I posted it - seeing how things were going there, I felt I needed to check it out more on my own.
So I start Googling it - and found a few articles that say Hillary Clinton was against the pardons. Fine, I think. The video has no real implications. There is one thing that stands out, though... they all mention that she was laying down the groundwork for a NYS Senate run, which makes the entire situation more interesting... I keep clicking on articles (its hard to Google this without getting hits from weird Rightwing websites), but all that led me to
this article from September of 1999. Its from John King, Jonathan Aiken and Bill Mears from CNN. And it contains this statement:
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she supports the clemency offer - provided those covered renounce violence.
Even the most die-hard Clinton supporter
has to admit,
that is a campaign-ending position in a "Post 9/11" world. Very poor judgment after 8 years in the White House.
Yes, I know that Carter and others supported the clemency, but there is no way you are going to be able to spin "we should release convicted terrorists if they denounce violence" position she took, in this day and age. This is not her Pastor, this is
her and her husband. And as Clinton supporters are fond of pointing out, "it is a fair preview of what they will be hitting her with in the GE."
No, those offered pardons did not personally kill anyone, but they are the equivalent of Al-Qaeda bomb makers and planning partners, even if they weren't going to plant the bombs themselves.
...side note:
Please read this stunning comment from JDPriestly on that thread:
What interests me is that we had a very serious terrorist threat here and yet we had no panic. These events were not used to deprive Americans of their civil rights. Thus, the current laws against our civil rights are not necessary. The current terrorist threat is probably not as great as the one involving the Puerto Ricans. The number of Al Qaeda supporters in the U.S. is minimal, far less than the number of supporters of Puerto Rican independence at the time of this horrible bombing.
Another reason to stop the Bush administration's infringement on our civil rights.
Flame away, but this could be really big in the "electability" argument.