Your article that you linked to (in the first post in this thread) is very well written and well thought out. While some have made references to Bush's behavior as Gov. of Texas, you make the case quite strongly that Gov. Bush (who, being the state's executive, had the same power of the pardon for state offenses), routinely denied just about every pardon and commutation request that crossed his desk. Now apparantly he's "seen the light" just because one of his own is in trouble. The whole thing is disgraceful. Anyway, I urge others to check out jlapper's blog article.

You also raise an interesting question about FDR and bloggers...

Michale -

I would state it somewhat differently. I think that it's a disease of the Presidency itself (for presidents from either party) that eventually becomes just too irresistable. After all, it's about the only constitutional power which is almost "monarchial" in its sweeping scope. The president can pardon anybody he wants to for any reason he wants, with the only exception being for impeachment (this way, if he gets impeached and convicted, he can't pardon himself). I think that eventually the power to pardon buddies, especially in the three months between the election and the president's stepping down, just becomes too tempting. The difference in this case is that Bush's hand was forced by the appeals court. I think Bush would have much preferred to pardon Libby outright, but in the last month of his term.

valbrady -

You'll notice that Bush is keeping the door open to a full pardon at the end of his term for Libby. I would bet dollars to donuts that sometime between Christmas and New Years of 2008, Libby will indeed be pardoned. And while you're mostly right, I must point out that (agree with it or not) Joe Biden has a very well thought out plan for how to get out of Iraq -- partition the country into three. I'm not a Biden supporter or anything, just wanted to point it out.

Thanks to all for commenting!

-CW

>Forget Democrat or Republican,
>"Money speaks for money, the
>devil for his own."

Couldn't have possibly said it better myself..

That's why my official political designation is NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

Or, as Richard Pryor said in BREWSTER'S MILLIONS, "NONE OF THE ABOVE".... :D

Michale.....

But you do bring up an interesting notion regarding blogging in the 1940s. And I think you are dead on ballz accurate with your last line.

Michale.....

Just as an interesting sidebar to your mention of Marc Rich here's an archived CNN article on Libby being questioned about Rich, who he defended.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."

Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.

"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.

Forget Democrat or Republican, "Money speaks for money, the devil for his own."

Congress and now evidently the Supreme Court are useless puppets and Bush/Chaney are pulling the strings. Congress passing legislation that Bush will most certainly veto does nothing toward actually ending the war; and if miraculously Congress did manage to overturn the vero, the 5-4 Supreme Court would just find it unconstitutional (as in the Constitution according to Bush). Let's face it, we are stuck in Iraq until Bush is out of office, and so far I see no Democratic plan to end it even then. Big sigh!
Val

I don't know if Democratic Presidents have done MUCH worse though. But definitely just as bad. Obviously you could equate the Japanese internment camps to Gitmo and even argue it was worse since there were literally no special conditions, i.e., suspected of crimes. It was simply, "If you're Japanese you're going to disappear for a few years. Sorry."

I wonder if it would have affected FDR's popularity if technology allowed for the instant spread of communication as it does today. Had millions been blogging in the early forties, would FDR's memory be as fond? Will any president escape history anymore? Will every person who occupies the office be scrutinized beyond rationality? Possibly. We may be entering an age where simply by means of technology every President from here on out is going to look awful.

Don't get me wrong. I am not using the "Yea,But" defense as that is the sign of a lazy and ignorant debater..

My only point is the hypocrisy that Democrats exhibit in their castigation of Bush. And it's not just in this Libby affair, but in EVERYTHING.

I read all about Reid's and Obama's and Clinton's and Pelosi's faux indignation over Bush's pardon and I just shake my head sadly.

It seems that everything Bush is slammed by Democrats for, from Gitmo to Libby, has been committed by Democratic Presidents, only much MUCH worse..

Imagine politics free from hypocrisy... :D

Michale.....

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

These, for the most part, were real criminals, not the political hatchet job that was the Libby case.

Let's face it. This is another one of those issues where those of the Left are equally as guilty as those on the right.

Michale

Excellent article. I'm stunned. I thought even Bush would realize this was foot-shooter but I must remember that, to paraphrase a line from My Favorite Year, "You can count on Bush. He will always let you down." I wrote about it myself after I pulled my jaw off the floor - http://magnificentbile.blogspot.com/2007/07/has-governor-called.html

I don't know if you're as rapidly opposed to the death penalty as I am but I couldn't help immediately thinking about the grotesque double standard when I read that Bush thought the sentence was "excessive." Anyway, gotta go now. Thanks again for the terrific viewpoint as always.

Jonathan