Quote:
Originally posted by robertthebard:
The thing that aggravates me most about it isn't the president's power to do it, but how people on the one hand will applaud one president but act shocked that another does the same thing. Or, as in this particular case, something a lot less. After all, Bush could have pardoned Libby, if he'd wanted to, but instead commuted the sentence. To me, the more I think about it, he should have pardoned him. After all, Libby wasn't the big fish.
|
Shouldn't a pardon or a commutation be judged on its own merit, in its own proper context? What's the use of comparing it to what other Presidents have done or how people reacted to that? Wrong is still wrong, and dragging Clinton into all this really doesn't change a thing about that. I'm sure Clinton had his fair share of controversial pardonings, but that should not change a thing about this case on its own.
Of course some level of partisanship will rear its ugly head in matters like these, but surely there's a difference between absolving someone of marihuana charges, and someone who is the center of a huge political scandal. Context is important, not sheer numbers.