Having taken the week off to work on a few home improvement projects, I got to hear lots of commentary on the talk shows last Tuesday on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence.
I need to say up front that I agree with the jurors in this case: They had a lot of sympathy for Libby, and felt he was a pretty nice guy that was taking the bullet for others who were the true criminals. But they respected the law, and had to follow the judges instructions. He had broken the law and needed to pay the consequences, regardless of how they personally felt about the man.
I've always found the following type of analysis to be useful in judging the rightness of a political issue. Picture for a moment that everything about the Scooter Libby case was exactly the same as it turned out, with one significant difference: In this scenario, Libby is the chief of staff of a powerful Democratic senator that is under suspicion for outing an undercover CIA agent for political purposes.
With that picture in your mind, ask yourself: Would the conservative talk show hosts, the Wall Street Journal and Republican activists be preaching about how unjust Libby's sentence was? Would President Bush go out of his way to commute this supposedly excessive sentence?
If you think the answer to the above hypothetical situation is "no", then the argument about whether Libby was treated unfairly is moot. He received special treatment solely because of his personal ties to the Bush Administration. And that is wrong, no matter what you personally think of Libby's case.
If you think the answer to the above hypothetical situation is "yes" - well, if that's the case, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
8 comments:
Before I read your blog, having only read the title, my answer was "they'd try to impeach the president"
The problem with this argument is that it does not consider the fact that Democrats are always wrong! :)
human idiot 1
war irak 2
destruction massive 0
george bush (-) 12
saludos from Reus Spain
Politics is fake -- on both sides of the aisle. You are quite correct that the reaction would be very different, were Scooter Libby a democrat in a democratic administration. Partisan Republicans (who are now saying the commutation was either good or no big deal) would be screaming for justice; partisan Democrats (who are now screaming for justice) would by saying the commutation was either good or no big deal).
steve u - If you compare the actions of party leadership as they apply to Tom DeLay (and others) and William Jefferson, someone might conclude that you are being an apologist on this.
William Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignments. Tom DeLay was given a standing Ovation by House Republicans.
Hell, the fact that House Republicans nominated and awarded Duke Cunningham a place in the House Hall of Fame AFTER he started his jail sentence is a pretty good piece of proof that you're just makin' stuff up.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20060714-9999-1n14duke.html
Just in case you wanted to know about that Hall of Fame crap
JM,
I'm rushing out the door and don't quite understand your point. Are you saying I'm making something up in my comment? If so, what? That people are acting in partisan fashion?
My point is pretty simple. Rabid partisanship on both sides of the aisle is bad. How exactly is that apologizing for anyone? To me, Jefferson, DeLay, and Cunningham are all cancer.
One thing I have to concede to Steve U: I thought it was unfortunate for the Democrats that the Clintons were at the forefront in speaking out against the Libby commutation. Some of President Clinton's last minute pardons were hard to justify, and it certainly took some of the moral wind out of the argument. The Clintons should have kept mum on this and let someone else do the moral outrage thing.
Post a Comment