The firestorm of political fallout from Bush's actions on Scooter Libby's commutation was as predictable as it was one-sided. Take, for instance, a story in the Los Angeles Times pointing out the stark hypocrisy from Hillary Clinton's scathing remarks on Bush's actions. Clinton said the action "sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." Whether or not that is true, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black: her husband, Bill Clinton, "hustled through pardons for 141 people and commutations for 36 more [at the end of his presidency]. Among those who received pardons were 27 men and women convicted of drug crimes, deserters from the military, a former member of the Clinton Cabinet who pleaded guilty to making false statements to authorities, and various perjurers and obstructionists. Clinton's half-brother walked away that day with a clean record, as did Patty Hearst and financier Marc Rich — at the time a fugitive from justice on charges of violating the embargo against trade with Iran, tax evasion and other unsavory deeds. Clinton's pardons were particularly offensive because they were issued just as his presidency ended, so there was no way for him to be held accountable for his misuse of power." To be fair, Hillary is not Bill. But, does anyone realistically think that a Hillary administration is going to have policies substantially different than what Bill's administration had?
Does Hillary have a point? Should the President be allowed to use the pardon as he sees fit? Let's look at history. P. S. Ruckman Jr., writing on National Review Online, makes the general case for the Presidential power to pardon by looking at the public records. He says that "[i]n the Annual Report of the attorney general, one can see pardons have been granted because criminals were 'reformed,' promised to reform, or because their release might cause others to reform. Pardons have been given to those who were insane, went insane in prison, and those who might have gone insane if put into prison. Pardons have also been granted so criminals could take care of someone else who went insane, was going insane or did not want to go insane. Benjamin Ogle (convicted of manslaughter) was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln, in part, because Ogle was 'rather remarkable for his good-humored disposition.' Now, imagine if Bush had written that! Lincoln was also moved by John Lawson’s 'reputation for honesty.' Lawson (alias John Lassano) had been convicted for passing counterfeit money." He finishes by saying, "[i]f you think Bush’s explanation was among the very poorest, you just don’t have a library card."
This is one of the instances where the Constitution -- once again, the final arbiter of the law in America -- is quite clear that the President can do exactly what Bush did without any explanation whatsoever. The fact that the liberal left doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong. The real question is not 'can he do it' but 'should he do it', and that decision is the President's alone. This is one of the privileges of the office, and one of the reasons that elections matter.
Was Bush correct to commute Libby's sentence? I believe that a close look at the facts of the situation shows he was. Anyone who keeps whining about it is simply trying to make political hay and drum up another scandal where none really exists. You can disagree with me if you want, but the fact remains that Bush had Constitutional authority to do it, and he did it. Move on.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment