Dionne on page A21 of today's Washington Post refers to "the rush of conservative organs demanding an immediate pardon of Scooter Libby."
Krauthammer on the very same page says a pardon "should be granted now without any further delay."
So does that make the WaPo a conservative organ, or just its op-ed page, or just Krauthammer? And if Krauthammer is an organ, which one is he? See video here for suggestions.
The ninth and tenth words in CK's piece are "Bill Clinton"
Not a good way to start an argument for pardoning someone who lied under oath.
Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury. Why should he be pardoned?
Someone, somewhere has to return honesty and integrity to government.
Posted by: Jeffrey Sykes | Mar 09, 2007 at 10:11 AM
The comments from some of the jurors themselves are the most revealing and I feel the most reflective of the majority of people: yes, Libby lied (or at least had a "faulty memory" of events, but the big fish are still out there free - so why not give Libby a pardon? Isn't the justice system more tainted by the wrong person going to trial for the wrong crime than his fudging on a few questions? So now the Bush White house is really on the hot seat because to pardon Libby calls more attention to their culpability in being loose with classified information to meet their own ends.
If the conservative blogs and print media think this will go away with the stroke of a pardon I think they may be wrong.
Posted by: Ishmael | Mar 09, 2007 at 11:58 AM
A pardon would be a great thing. It would come back to haunt the Party of Greed for years to come.
Posted by: Anglico | Mar 09, 2007 at 12:39 PM
The point about Clinton was a valid comparison. Mona Charen explains why:
"Further, while there was no underlying offense in the Libby case, i.e., there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, there was an underlying offense in the Clinton case -- the sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Indeed, the former president paid Ms. Jones $850,000 to settle the case."
Krauthammer's conclusion says it all:
"This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon."
We all know that this prosecution had very little to do with what Scooter Libbey said or did.
Posted by: Bubba | Mar 09, 2007 at 05:29 PM
"We all know that this prosecution had very little to do with what Scooter Libbey said or did."
Yeah, except lying under oath to federal prosecutors. A clearly an impeachable offense in some people's eyes, but somehow pardonable as well (depending on the affliation of the offender).
Posted by: Kirk D. | Mar 09, 2007 at 10:35 PM