Stop it already! I’m tired of the hypocritical debate about Bush letting Scooter Libby off the hook. You know the Right has run out of arguments whenever it uses Bill Clinton as an excuse to support whatever lame-brained decision Bush makes. So it stands to reason their main argument for freeing Scooter before the appeals process had run its course is: Clinton did it. Well, it also smelled to high heaven when our boy Bill granted all those pardons before leaving office. I wrote it at the time. Most in the media said the same thing. It shouldn’t matter whether you’re a liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, two stinking actions do not make perfume, darling.
All these law-n-order folks on the Right get real squishy soft when one of their own faces jail time. Tell me how you support impeaching a president for lying to a grand jury and yet support not only a commutation, but a full pardon for Libby? Now I finally figured out what Bush meant when he called himself a "compassionate conservative." You really think the scales of justice are equally balanced when even Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton served more jail time than a guy who lied to a grand jury investigating the outing of a CIA agent? Suddenly these defenders of our national security don’t think it was any big deal to leak the name of a covert agent during wartime. (Remember the War on Terror?)
They can point their fingers all they want at Clinton — I voted for him twice and then called for his resignation in the pages of this newspaper. I even rooted for his impeachment right along with the Republicans. You see, it didn’t matter if Clinton was caught in a "perjury trap," it was of his own making. I didn’t care whether he lied about sex, it’s the lie that counts. They don’t call it "obstruction of justice" for nothing. So when the Right argues this is different, they’re so full of hot air they could float around the world in 80 days.
Libby’s defenders argue there was no underlying crime. The reason prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald couldn’t charge anyone with a crime (let’s say, Dick Cheney for example) is Scooter lied. He frustrated the case. He took one for the team and Bush repaid him.
Another argument they use is it was Richard Armitage who leaked the story, not Libby. But it was the latter who ran the operation for the vice president to discredit and intimidate a critic of Bush’s war policy — Ambassador Joe Wilson. It was Libby who leaked to at least seven different reporters.
A third argument is the process was politicized and, therefore, unfair. Well let’s see, the prosecutor and the judge are both registered Republicans. What would have been their motivation? Michael Moore did not preside over this trial. It doesn’t matter to this administration if you’re a Republican (refer to the attorney general firing all those Republican appointees). If you disagree with their narrow agenda, you’re the enemy.
The president’s statements surrounding the commutation were astounding. He thought the sentence was "excessive." Never discussed it with the prosecutor or his own justice department. Never figured out the sentence of 30 months in prison was squarely within the guidelines he himself had professed to support. Never bothered to find out the average served for obstruction of justice is about five years.
Has anyone figured out why Bush didn’t just outright pardon Libby? Could it be a pardon would have forced him to testify before Congress in its investigation of the vice president? It would have eliminated Libby’s appeal, and with it his right to invoke self-incrimination if forced to testify. No action by Bush could have created an angry Scooter ready and willing to spill his guts.
Is there long-lasting harm here? Lawyers will say it’s the precedent Bush’s decision sets. If the president of the United States believes jail time for obstructing justice is excessive, then why should anyone awaiting sentence on the same charge serve any? If we weaken the punishment, we can expect others will follow Libby’s example of either lying or not cooperating with authorities.
As a postscript to all of this, Democrats should take heed. The baggage of the Clinton years lies squarely around Hillary’s neck. Her tough stance on the Libby pardon seemed ludicrous with Bill sitting on the stage behind her, the man who pardoned 140 assorted friends and contributors before he left office. I can’t believe Democrats would want to spend the next eight years with another Clinton in the White House being constantly reminded by Republicans of the mistakes Bill made.
Also, isn’t it time to rethink the presidential pardon? Maybe place some limits or have it subject to review. Why should we suffer the expense of a fair trial and all that goes with it only to have the occupant in the White House — Democrat or Republican — decide justice isn’t justice when it’s applied to friends?
