Yes, now-- because Bush will indeed
pardon Libby when he leaves office-- no question about it. He'll also
pardon the rest of his friends after they are indicated, charged, and
whatever. He's got nothing to lose now-- Bush is probably
becoming dimly aware of the fact that his administration is going to go down
in history as the worst ever.
I was surprised that Giuliani and Romney both endorsed the commutation.
I thing they may come to regret this. But then again, there is an
important message here that they may wish to send out to their supporters
and colleagues and campaign workers, and that message is: We will take
care of you! If you have to do something of "borderline legality" on
behalf of the campaign-- don't worry. We will take care of you.
In 2001, George Bush Jr.,
following his Christian principles, and his instincts for justice and
integrity and honor, appointed Reggie B. Walton to the Federal bench.
No more molly-coddling criminals under my administration! Walton was
known for his tough as nails approach to sentencing-- the only way to stop
crime in this country is to make sure that criminals pay the full penalty
for their offences! By Golly, America wanted frontier justice and
George Bush delivered!
When the U.S. sent Mayer
Arar to Syria for some good, old-fashioned torture, and it was later
revealed that it was all a mistake-- no apologies! We are tough even
on uncommitted crimes!
Until... until Dick
Cheney's good friend "Scooter" appeared before Reggie B. Walton and Reggie
B. Walton did exactly what George Bush Jr. appointed him to do-- deliver a
tough sentence.
Since then, Republican
apologists have been performing the kind of verbal acrobatics that would
make even George Orwell blush. Bush doesn't want to undermine
the judge, according to his White House Spokesflunky Tony Snow: "The
point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice".
There you go. To do "what is consistent with the
dictates of justice". One of the fundamental principles of justice, of
course, is equality under the law. So if a judge sentences Scooter
Libby to two and a half years in jail and that turns out to be about average
for obstruction of justice, then -- then.... well, let's not be
coy here: nobody ever thought George Bush or his gang wanted the law to
apply equally to themselves. Don't forget that none of those raging
militarists in the White House ever served in a wartime army either.
Other people do that stuff. When they come back, we slash their
veterans benefits. It's the Republican way.
So when other people commit crime, the Republicans
want the law to be merciless, uncompromising, and relentlessly destructive.
But not, of course, for our crimes.
What Bush has done is absolutely the opposite of the
"dictates of justice": he has applied the law unequally. He has
over-ruled a judge and jury. He has short-circuited due process. Don't buy
all the whining about a "conviction" being sufficient punishment-- they
don't believe that about any other criminal-- why should we think they
really believe it about Libby?
But it doesn't even matter if Bush agreed with the verdict or
the sentence at all. It is completely irrelevant, if a country has a
constitution and an independent judiciary. What Bush just did, from
the point of view of any one who believes in constitutional government,
was despicable.
He has done a favor for his friend. He has
offered compassion and clemency to someone who did him a favor by taking the
brunt of the Valerie Plame scandal and not implicating his superiors.
There are two ways Bush could have made things right.
He could have advocated understanding and compassion for every single person who
comes before Judge Walton.
Or he could have let Libby serve his full sentence, just
like everyone else.
