The ink was probably barely dry on the commutation order before the hacks at The Wall Street Journal, fresh from being repudiated by a majority of the Senate and the country on the amnesty bill, put together their Libby editorial together. It could have been written before the fact, but regardless of this it is a rich artifact of Bush-era propaganda. Mr. Bush is “evading responsibility” by failing to pardon Libby, when his act of commutation before Libby’s appeal was heard was something that he definitely did not have to do. He is “evading responsibility,” even though the WSJ position on this entire matter is one, long evasion of responsibility, moral, political and legal. These people are simply amazing. The commutation is a “dark moment” in the history of the administration–and not because it is giving cover to a convicted perjuror! It is a “dark moment” because the President did not misuse his pardon power to completely exonerate a felon. That is what these people mean. The WSJ said that Libby deserved better. Actually, he deserved to go to jail. He should be glad that the President was willing to do this much for him. So should his moronic defenders.
The Journal has a twofer of bad contributions this morning. Brendan Miniter has arrived to tell us that–contrary to what he must think is established public opinion on the matter–George Washington didn’t win every battle! Why, he even retreated from New York (a move that anyone even briefly acquainted with New York City can applaud for its wisdom)! He apparently thinks that the example of the weaker, native force defeating the intruding imperial army at Saratoga is supposed to encourage us in our campaign in Iraq. Of course he does.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Derek Copold
In a way, I sort of agree with the Journal. Yeah, Libby should have done his time making sand for the beaches. Still, they’re right in that the commutation was a weasel move on Bush’s part. He was trying to have it both ways. Tough on law-breaking, but willing to cover for his buddies.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Grumpy Old Man
Because I think the prosecutor was over-zealous and I don’t approve of crimiinalzing political derelictions, I’m not at all outraged by this one.
I’d like to see the same scrutiny applied to other cases–the border patrol agents, the pain doctor, the Martha Stewarts of the world. This will happen when the lions lay down with the lambs.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Daniel Larison
It is something of a weasel move, I will grant you, which is why it is the one he chose. He was not going to pardon the man, and I guess he wasn’t willing to sit by and do nothing. It is classic Bush: make a gesture in the direction of satisfying a constituency, and then offer only half the goods (or less).
I, too, have difficulty getting especially outraged over *this*. If launching wars of aggression, working to gut the Constitution and once in a while claiming exemption from rules governing the executive branch itself don’t make people angry, why should they care about small beer like this? Instead of arguing over how many articles of impeachment there should be for all the many illegal things the President and VP have done, people sputter with disbelief that Bush did something that he is, for once, actually legally empowered to do. The symbolism is terrible, and it says a lot about the administration, but I, for one, will be glad to see this circus go away. Maybe then we could focus on the actual crimes of the administration that take place before our eyes all the time.