And it also would have been nice if one of our great pro-Israel presidents had pardoned Mr. Winters while he was still alive and able to benefit from the pardon. Of course, the one Jewish person pardoned is one who is already deceased and cannot benefit. Those still alive, such as Pollard and Libby will have to wait. Why pardon anybody who can enjoy the benefits of the pardon?

c f on December 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Unless Bush breaks from tradition, he is not done issuing pardons. It is traditional for a President to issue pardons on his last night in office.
Bush may also issue additional pardons prior to his last night in office.

i_am_me on December 23, 2008 at 4:51 pm

I guess I’m a little confused. If someone should be pardoned, what is the virtue in waiting? Ramos and Compean should have been pardoned a long time ago (and, of course, never imprisoned). If Pollard and Libby should be pardoned, why should they, particularly Pollard, who is in poor health, have to stay in jail, just because of a ‘custom’ to wait, at least for certain people, until Bush’s last day?

c f on December 23, 2008 at 5:52 pm

President Bush has been a dissappoinment, in many ways, to much of the Jewish community. I think Bush would gain much respect and appreciation by pardoning Jonathan Pollard.

HatLady on December 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm

As big a supporter of Israel as I am, let me say that any president who pardon’s the traitor Pollard will immediately sink to my “worst president of my lifetime”, sinking below LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. That Pollard is still sucking air at the expense of the US taxpayer is itself a disgrace — he deserved the same treatment as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Rhymes With Right on December 23, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pollard violated his oath of office and betrayed his country by passing classified to a foreign power (Israel). That said, he has paid the price, and — as the foreign power is considered to be friendly to the US — he has served well above the minimum time required for such an offense. Bottom line: Mr President, time to pardon Pollard and deport him to Israel.

gunjam on December 23, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Here is my Christmas wish-list for Presidential pardons this month: Pollard, Ramos & Compean, and Scooter Libby. That would be a welcome “hat trick” of Presidential pardons! Odds-makers, what are the odds? We can all pray, at least.

gunjam on December 23, 2008 at 9:09 pm

While Julius & Ethel Rosenberg were traitors (although Ethel was complicit rather than actually spying herself), the penalties against them were much more severe than other spies for foreign powers before and after. How many Muslim traitors have been executed? How many spies for communist China have been executed? Many identified spies for Nazi Germany were not executed. RWR has a very narrow criterion for judging how good a president is. Just whether one person is pardoned or not is enough for this person to decide how good a president is? Whenever I see the phrase ‘as a big supporter of Israel…” I always get suspicious. There is a ‘but’, and the prelude, probably false, about being a “big” (the word ‘big’ itself is strange in this context, and actually suggests disparagement — real supporters of Israel would probably use words like “consistent”, “steadfast”, or “strong”) is used simply to gain license for comments which seem to border, at the very least, on being anti-Semitic.

c f on December 23, 2008 at 9:33 pm

You put WAY too much weight on that word “big”, cf.
And what is anti-Semitic about suggesting a traitor like Pollard should suffer the just penalty for his treason?
And would you REALLY like to know what I believe should be done to Muslim traitors like Jose Padilla, you can find an example here. It will also give you an idea as to my view of the proper fate of those Nazi traitors (and, by implication, Communist traitors) ought to have been dealt with as well.

Rhymes With Right on December 23, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Guess that code got stripped. You can find it here.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/117171.php

Rhymes With Right on December 23, 2008 at 11:04 pm

[President Bush has been a dissappoinment, in many ways, to much of the Jewish community. I think Bush would gain much respect and appreciation by pardoning Jonathan Pollard.
Posted by: HatLady [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2008 08:55 PM]
And most American Jews support the pardon of Pollard? This has absolutely nothing to with Jewishness. Neither Clinton nor Bush 2 pardoned Pollard because of strong objections made by the Intelligence and Military communities. If it had not been for these objections, Clinton would have either pardoned Pollard or commuted his sentence 10 yrs ago.
And BTW, wasn’t Caspar Weinberger an ethnic Jew? He’s the one who buried Pollard, right?

Norman Blitzer on December 24, 2008 at 12:45 am

NB’s diction is woeful. Although the meaning of his rant can be discerned because of knowledge of his liberal politics, the clarity of his sentence structure is pathetic. (e.g. the 3rd sentence) The sentence about Weinberger is even more pathetic. Consistent with his political beliefs & the language in his post, presumably Karl Marx wasn’t anti-Semetic either.
Anybody tempted to go to RWR’s links should proceed with caution, understanding the risks of losing anonymity. The anti-Semitism consists of fiery diatribes about Pollard, when there are certainly no comparable diatribes about the Muslim, Commie and Nazi traitors, except for weak references once this person is called on them. Comparing Pollard with Padilla is equally misleading.
Padilla was trying to get people blown up by a dirty bomb; not really comparable to Pollard — no acknowledgment of the mistaken attribution of Ames’ espionage to Pollard; also ironic that RWR includes no mention of the coddling of our (or at least my) enemies at Guatanimo. Strange, isn’t it, how Pollard is deprived of needed medication, etc. for his health problems while the terrorists at Guatanimo who are trying by physical means to destroy us are treated like monarchs, with all the hotshot lawyers defending them. This shows the anti-semitism of the legal profession as well. Where are they re Pollard? They’re too busy defending the terrorists imprisoned for their actions.
When enemies of the Jewish people use analogies, it is often helpful, because the type of inappropriateness used in the analogies helps give them away, and helps indicate the type of predjudice they have, whether Socialist, Buchananite, Commie, WASP, etc.

c f on December 24, 2008 at 1:19 am

If someone is a bag of shit that has spied on the U.S., they should have been executed, and then there would be no talk of pardons.
The US and Israel should not need to spy on each other anyway, if they are allies.

rtaylor174 on December 24, 2008 at 3:11 am

So of course rtaylor174 (where are the other 173 of thm hiding?) believes all the Muslim trash, Commie trash, Chinese spies, Europeans, Members of Congress, their staffs, disloyal Mexicans, etc. should also have been executed, although that, somehow doesn’t seem to arouse the comments that this does. (the obscenity seems to eliminate the need for rational development or explanation of what is being said; not only a debator’s tactic but an attempt at intimidation). Of course the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is complex; some support, and consistent pressure on Israel since its inception to avoid defending itself against the Arab friends of the Republicans and Democrats.

c f on December 24, 2008 at 3:55 am

Well, cf, it is pretty clear that you are unfamiliar with what is written at my site — starting with the “I STAND WITH ISRAEL” banner in the corner. I’ve had plenty to say about Gitmo.
How unfamiliar are you with my site? I’ve had strong words about the situation at Gitmo — I’ve even supported the summary execution of the prisoners there once their intelligence value has been exhausted if they can be shown to have taken up arms or plotted against the US. Tough enough for you?
Dude, the way you throw around the term anti-Semitism, you clearly devalue the concept by defining in an overly-broad manner. As such an accusation of anti-Semitism from you is worth as much as an accusation of racism from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Spies, saboteurs and other traitors ought to be executed — regardless of the foreign power for which they act. End of discussion. And any president who pardons such folks has betrayed the country, and reaches the nadir of my esteem in doing so.

Rhymes With Right on December 24, 2008 at 5:12 am

A couple of additional debators’ tactics by RWR, although betrayed by this person’s poor command of the English language (e.g. the shifting of tenses in the last sentence). Use of the word ‘dude’ is supposed to show how tough this person is, when the substantive content is unable to do it.
Although seemingly this person (I suspect this person might really be one of Debbie’s admirers from DoJ or Homeland Security) takes a strong stand against all traitors, the arguments, although deceptively appealing, are not comparable.
Like RTaylor 174 (always have to remember those numbers), this person conflates Pollard with actual terrorists, obliterating the real differences, although both were disloyal to this country.
Re RWR & Gitmo, there are several differences. The Gitmo scum were actually carrying out physical terrorist plots against the United States, something Pollard did not do.
More importantly, however, this person’s support of summary execution addresses a hypothetical situation. No serious person is advocating summary execution of the Gitmo prisoners. It is a safe verbal position to take. On the other hand, the possible pardon of Pollard is a real issue that could go either way, and articles and comments about it actually do have the potential of influencing Bush II. Of course his Saudi buddies (or yours?) may not want him to pardon Pollard, wanting to retain the image of disloyal Jewish Americans.
As I said before, analogies tell us more about the writer sometimes than about the subject being written about. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have said many things, and made many accusations. Most are spurious and hyperbolic, but through their long careers, occasionally there have been accusations of racism that have had some merit, although not often. The more serious deficiency in this analogy is to compare me, on the basis of one comment, with individuals such as Jackson and Sharpton, who have made numerous comments over many decades, and established long public records.
Finally, there are differences among foreign powers. All alllies routinely spy on each other. Should someone getting secrets from Britain be treated the same as someone stealing secrets for Iran? An intelligent person would, in this context, consider the use that the information would be put to. Defensive security purposes in Britain, but terrorism in Iran.

c f on December 24, 2008 at 6:38 am

As soon as i saw the Yahoo! headline i IMMEDIATELY thought–GW’s finally done the right thing on his way out & pardoned Pollard–guess he’s STILL a schmuck!
Obama COULD do the right thing by pardoning him as soon as he steps in the door…but THAT scenario is highly unlikely too.
Dostoevsky rules: Love thy neighbours but HATE the Jews

EminemsRevenge on December 24, 2008 at 8:27 am

Bush would never pardon Pollard and especially now no one else will either.
He was stabbed in the back by Caspar Weinberger, a self hating Jew, who was part of the Conservative movement. The Leftists will certainly never pardon him.
I worked for a defense contractor and they had a security meeting every year with a short film from Federal security. For a number of years running, the example they brought of a spy was Pollard. Didn’t they have any other spies to highlight?
Ames, who outed Americans, and caused them to be killed was let out a long time ago. Pollard, who spied for an ally is still behind bars. The intelligence community fosters anti Semitism and is run by anti Semites. Holding Pollard is their semi legal way of expressing this endemic and systemic hatred. Just like they wouldn’t accept any Jewish Arabic translators but only Muslims who stab us in the back, they will never release Pollard.

Facts of Life on December 24, 2008 at 9:12 am

Pollard is a traitor and deserves to rot in prison for life. Who cares what “hero” he is to Isra’el.

Ken_K on December 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

[Well, cf, it is pretty clear that you are unfamiliar with what is written at my site — starting with the “I STAND WITH ISRAEL” banner in the corner.]
cf is a stupid illiterate.

Norman Blitzer on December 24, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The time has long passed for Jonathan Pollard to be released from prison. His crime should not be underestimated, but his sentence was excessive and unfair.
One has to wonder who is being protected by Pollard remaining in prison.

There is NO Santa Claus on December 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

NB, I realize you are condensing your comments, but there really seems to be an issue of disconnected thought processes. I guess you are asking, in your usual childish way, how someone can be antisemitic if they say “I stand with Israel”. Easy. Just ask Jimmy Carter, Condi Rice (but I have to say she looked good in those workout clothes) & all the rest of the antisemities who will issue one-phrase disclaimers about how they stand with Israel.
In this dumbed-down world of soundbytes taking the place of reasoned analysis, I guess RWR thought the readers of this blog were stuipd enough to be taken in by these quick slogans. It looks he was right in at least one case.

c f on December 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm

[It looks he was right in at least one case.
Posted by: c f [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2008 02:54 PM]
I was right before: you are a stupid illiterate. As for Condi Rice, we will find out after she leaves whether or not she’s an anti-Semite. On the issue of settlements, she’s been supporting the policy of GW which has been the policy since at least Reagan. Rice is just doing her job.

Norman Blitzer on December 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm

HMM, maybe the now retracted pardon of Isaac T can be traded for Pollard 🙂
Seriously, Deb, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement; “Yes, he spied, and he should be punished. But he’s been in prison for more than two decades, when other spies who did far more harm and spied for enemies–like China–got far less time and are already out. Most of what Pollard turned over to Israel was information the U.S. had agreed in writing to share with Israel, but chose not to.”
He is truly getting the shaft and sadly I certainly don’t see the next administration pardoning him either.

hairymon on December 25, 2008 at 9:34 am

cf — it would appear that you have boiled down the entire issue of anti-Semitism to whether or not one believes spies, saboteurs, and traitors against the US should receive long prison terms even if they are engaged in their activities for Israel. You take small semantic issues (“big” rather than “strong” supporter of Israel) and stylistic word choices (“dude”) to indicate hostility towards Israel. Never mind that I support settlements, Israeli military action against the Terrorstinians, and the placement of Israel’s capital in an undivided Jerusalem — I must hate Israel and Jews because I believe a man who betrayed my country should never spend another day as a free man. Your logic is, needless to say, lacking — or at least your definitions of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are.
Now do I respect the fact that reasonable people can disagree on the Pollard issue? Yes, I do. Debbie is certainly an example of this. You, however, are not reasonable on the issue. And because of that unreasonableness, you devalue the charges of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism by making them recklessly and irresponsibly.
Oh, and since you’ve compared me to Jimmy Carter, I’d like to direct you here to find my view on that unworthy former occupant of the Oval Office.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/260780.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/209421.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/265050.php

Rhymes With Right on December 25, 2008 at 12:57 pm

RWR raises no new arguments, but merely repeats his previous verbiage. How about the analogy with Jackson, et al? How about the comparison with the Gitmo terrorists? Like the rest of your friends at DoJ, you have said nothing in any of your posts about disloyal Muslim spies in the United States. You seem to talk about everything else but. Israel, Gitmo, semantics — The only spies you have mentioned in your posts are Pollard and the Rosenbergs. Although you made a general statement that spies ought to be executed, the only ones you specifically mentioned, in spite of the existence of numerous non-Jewish commie spies and Muslim spies, are Pollard and the Rosenbergs. Which non-Jewish spies, now living, do you believe should be executed, based on your general statement in an earlier post?
Of course, general mention of non-Jewish spies, and specific mention of Jewish spies constitutes disproportionate emphasis, and, therefore, anti-semitism. Typical of the Justice Department.

c f on December 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm

And in addition, you (probably intentionally) misunderstand my point about Carter. The point, clearly, is not the extent to which you disagree or agree with Carter. The point is where you agree with him. The agreement consists in throwing a verbal sop to pro-Israel policy, “I Stand with Israel’, and a few verbal positions, but then, by selective targeting of Jews, focus on Jewish disloyalty at the expense of disloyalty by the numerous non-Jews in the United States. Carter made all kinds of pro-Israel statements, but did everyting he could to weaken Jewish interests at the same time.

c f on December 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

RWR, one final question. Debbie mentioned Nada Nadim Prouty. Would you agree that she should be executed? imprisoned for life? Is she a traitor? Does it make any difference that she spied for Hezbollah, and not Israel? Does it matter which country or group a spy supports?

c f on December 25, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Actually, cf, I no longer feel any need to refute your arguments. You indicate clearly that you have no ACTUAL basis for making a false accusation of anti-Semitism against me. Show some ACTUAL anti-Semitism, not something you are imputing based upon the fact that I disagree with you on the Pollard issue and I dared to use the most notable spies against America of the twentieth century as an example of how ALL spies ought to be dealt with, namely execution. Even YOU admit that I have said spies ought to be executed — why should I bother to give you a list when I have clearly indicated that it does not matter whether they were spies for the PRC, Israel, Hamas, or any other foreign entity?
By the way, cf — did you actually bother to read what I had written on the Carter (or anything else)? And did you notice my bio, which clearly indicates that I am a teacher in Houston, not an employee of the DOJ (unless you think I have maintained a false-flag blog for four years just to come here this week to disagree about Pollard)? Quit creating strawmen to knock down — deal with reality.

Rhymes With Right on December 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I’m not surprised that you ‘no longer feel a need to refute my arguments’. You can’ do it.
You can’t bring yourself to say that Nada Nadim Prouty should be executed or imprisoned for life, although you have no trouble saying that about jews such as Pollard or the Rosenbergs. (I hope you don’t teach English — Carter does not carry an article in front of it, although some other languages do. Is English your native language?)
The obvious reason you won’t and can’t give me a list of other spies is that the only ones you pay attention to are Jewish spies.
A disproportionate concentration on Jewish spies, when, for the last several decades, the threats to our country have come from muslims and Chinese or Cubans, does show anti-semitism. Who says they’re the most notable spies? The Justice Department? if you’re not associated with them, they are cheating you out of compensation.
Your writings on Carter, whatever they may be, aren’t relevant. I have been talking about yur disproportionate reactions to different classes of spies.

c f on December 25, 2008 at 5:14 pm

cf:
What part of “ALL” don’t you get? “ALL” includes “ALL” — including the b*tch who you use as a litmus test (and whose name I won’t type just so as to avoid giving you the pleasure of having made me do so).
Also, under your logic I am not allowed to comment on Pollard on a thread about Pollard unless I am supporting a pardon. Under your logic I’m not allowed to use the best historical example of what I believe should be done to ALL spies,saboteurs, and traitors. In other words, you don’t really believe that I am legitimately allowed to hold my position or give voice to it.
And I’m sorry about my typo — the original sentence read “what I had written on the subject of Carter”, and I edited it to make it less wordy. I overlooked a word — giving you the opportunity to prove that you really have no legitimate point because you find it necessary to resort to a grammar flame rather than deal with the substance of what I have written.

Rhymes With Right on December 25, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Your arguments have now descended to the level of NB; a sorry state.
Of course you can comment however you like, but similarly, I can respond as I think is appropriate. And of course, when our main enemies today are Muslim terrorists and Commies in Asia and Latin America, the best example would be one of those spies, rather than Pollard.
It is childish for you not to mention Prouty’s name, but of course the reason for your not doing so is that you haven’t done research on any except Jewish spies from one or three former generations, not the numerous Muslim or Commie spies of today. Although your grammer is poor, you certainly must be aware that this was only a subsidiary argument of mine. And of course, even with Prouty, you are on safe ground as that case has already been decided. You save your venom and specificity for the person whose fate is in the air right now, i.e. Pollard. Why don’t you mention the specific names of the other, more dangerous –= since their are spying for our enemies — spies, not people who have been dead for 55 years?

c f on December 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm

cf — My comments came in response to a post about Pollard. Why would I comment on someone OTHER than Pollard? That isn’t a sign of obsession, my friend — that is an indication that I am staying on topic. My contempt for Pollard is being expressed here precisely because it is a discussion of Pollard AND because I view Debbie (and you, and a great many of my Jewish friends, as well as the Israeli government) as being fundamentally wrong in regard to his case.
Oh, and would you like to know why I have a special contempt for Pollard? It has to do with the fact that I grew up in a Navy family and his espionage was directed against the US Navy. I have a similar contempt for the Walker clan for that very reason.

Rhymes With Right on December 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Aside from the gratuitously demeaning term ‘my friend’ (which probably cost McCain a lot of votes), your logic once again is faulty.
Yes, your comments would center around Pollard, since the post was about him. Nevertheless, the content of your remarks about him, the context that you place his continued imprisonment, and the proportionality of his punishment to that of other spies, is important, and you have a lot of leeway how you choose to handle it. You chose to put disporportionate emphasis on Pollard and the Rosenbergs (who were not mentioned in the blog).
I can understand someone from a Navy background feeling contempt for Pollard, but as intelligent adults, contributing to a political discussion, we should be expected to transcend our background, and be able to place it in a wider context. Otherwise, people from CIA background would be most upset about CIA spies, etc., those from Army backgrounds most upset about Army spies, etc. In some sense, there are surface similarities to the victim groups being most concerned about victims of their own background.
Your discussion would have been clearer if you elaborated more on what your Jewish friends (sic) and the Israeli Government said that you consider fundamentally wrong. I doubt that all the positions are completely identical.

c f on December 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Sorry I made a friendly gesture, cf, in an attempt to put our dialogue on a more cordial footing. It was intended not to demean you, but to take the nasty edge off the tone of our conversation. I won’t make that mistake again.
Why did I connect Pollard and the Rosenbergs? Because i view the punishment meted out to that pair of famous spies (whose religion I give no weight due to their adherence to the malign creed of atheistic communism) as the appropriate one for every spy. And there is another parallel that you should not forget that — at the time of their acts of espionage (during WWII), the Soviet Union was the ally of the US. One could make the same sort of argument for them that is made in the Pollard case — that spying for an ally is not nearly so great an offense as spying for an enemy. Hence the comparison is not unreasonable.
And cf, you act as if I am not outraged by other acts of espionage against other agencies. That is not what I said — and my statement that ALL spies, saboteurs and traitors should be executed ought to make it clear that my position is held irrespective of the agency against which they commit their acts or that state (or, as you rightly point out, other entity) on whose behalf they betray this country.
And if you want some fundamental principles on which I am operating in contrast to my Jewish friends (and they do exist, despite your sarcastic use of “sic”) and the Israeli government, here they are:
1. Espionage ought to receive the harshest punishment — either life in prison or the death penalty.
2. The fact that espionage is engaged in for a “friendly power” or “ally” ought to be irrelevant.
3. Even if some spies receive less than the maximum punishment under the law, that is no reason for reducing the punishment of those who receive longer sentences.
Pollard, Ames, and Walker all received life sentences. None deserve a reduction of their sentence, nor should they ever taste freedom again. That said, the reality is that Pollard and Walker are both due for parole in 7 years (2015), and they will be released at that time. Any additional reduction of their sentences is unjustifiable — just as any reduction of the sentence of John Walker Lindh would be unjustifiable. The solution to such disproportionality would be for Congress to mandate higher sentences for spies, terrorists, and other such perpetrators of treason against the US.

Rhymes With Right on December 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm