Yesterday, I expressed the need for some measure of outrage over the fact that President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.
However, I have since recognized some political problems here.
Ten years ago, the Republicans thought that obstruction of justice, in a case as insignificant to national security as a President having sex with an intern, was such an outrage against justice that it was worth removing a President from office. Now, they treat the crime as a misdimeaner worthy of no punishment at all.
Ten years ago, the Democrats thought that the same case of obstruction of justice was a trivial matter. When they show outrage today, they show themselves to be just as hypocritical as the Republicans.
The sign that an individual has some shred of moral decency is when he condemns allies on the same standard that he uses to condemn adversaries. It is found in the person who says, "I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, but an upholder and defender of Justice. I will not look at your party affiliation to determine if I think you guilty or innocent of a crime."
Unfortunately, there are far too few people like that in this country today.
That lack of a moral standard - the lack of a consistent appeal to principles of right and wrong - is costing us a great deal.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Inconsistencies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ten years ago, the Democrats thought that the same case of obstruction of justice was a trivial matter. When they show outrage today, they show themselves to be just as hypocritical as the Republicans.
I disagree with this. First, many Democrats voted to censor President Clinton for his perjury. But they correctly recognized that lying in a civil deposition about a consensual sexual affair is not an impeachable offense. Lying in a civil deposition is usually unlikely to even get someone penalized in a normal court proceeding.
Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury. But he didn't just perjure himself. His lies actively obstructed the investigation into who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent who worked on nuclear non-proliferation. Fitzgerald has said that a cloud remains over the VP's office, and that cloud is partly do to Libby's obstruction of his investigation.
To me, this is like comparing thiefs, one who takes a nickel, and one who takes a million bucks, and expecting the same level of outrage. They do not compare.
Something else bothers me, though. I'm beggining to wonder the wisdom of the President having the power to pardon (without question or review people.) How often is this power abused?
Bush commuted Libby's sentence, which in some way could be an extension of the obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother and the husband of someone who contributed a lot of money to his presidential library (and here I would think would be the proper place to condemn any Democrats who defended those pardons for hypocrisy.) George Bush senior pardoned convicted felon Elliot Abrams for his crimes related to the Iran-Contra scandal and now he has helped George Bush jr. wage another illegal war. And Ford pardoned Nixon.
I would like to see a history of the use of the presidential pardon. If we have a functioning press this might be the sort of thing we might expect to see done.
And this is kind of tangential, but I find it interesting that some of the same Democrats who voted to censor Clinton for his perjury were adamantly opposed to censoring Bush for authorizing illegal domestic spying on US citizens and even chastised Senator Feingold for raising the motion.
Post a Comment