Commuting Libby Doesn’t Make Everyone Happy
An important part of President Bush’s personality pundits and political analysts forget is he doesn’t care about polls or political popularity. If he did he would have abandonded Iraq and dumped the immigration bill. Commuting Scooter Libby’s prison sentence is another example.
Robert Novak, who started this whole mess, wrote today,
The conviction of Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice charges in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case has taken on overriding symbolic implications. Libby, as Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, is seen by Bush’s enemies as typifying deception that led the U.S. into war in Iraq. His conviction was seen by conservatives as part of the bitter assault on the Bush administration, targeting Cheney in particular.
…
Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor — the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald.
Bush doesn’t please the Washington Post editorial board or the Wall Street Journal editorial board which span the MSM ideological spectrum.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board lets their heads explode:
True, the president might have pardoned Libby outright for his obstruction in the investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. The $250,000 fine and probation remain in place. The president points to a recommendation by the probation office for a lesser sentence. OK, but harsh sentences are a common occurrence in American jurisprudence. And most ordinary people don’t have powerful friends who can step in to help.
According to their logic President Bush should have looked away at what he saw as an injustice because Libby worked in the White House. Because Bush hasn’t commuted others that means Libby should be denied this action? How is that fair to Libby?
In the Journal Sentinel’s view the closer you are to power the less right you have for help. That’s real inequality before the law.
“Splitting The Baby Gains Bush Little”
“Libby Commutation Reactions”
According to their logic President Bush should have looked away at what he saw as an injustice because Libby worked in the White House. Because Bush hasn’t commuted others that means Libby should be denied this action? How is that fair to Libby?
Wait now. Let me get this straight.
You’re asking how it’s “not fair” for Libby to potentially not have gotten special treatment? To be treated like everybody else?
In the Journal Sentinel’s view the closer you are to power the less right you have for help.
Sean, what? You’re not making any sense at all. Not getting a commutation would have put him in exactly the same situation as the other 3000 people who have pending commutation petitions who will likely be ignored.
Getting the same amount of help isn’t getting less. Indeed, since everybody else isn’t going to get any help at all, it’s impossible to have less help than none.
Your analysis here is just nonsensical.