Pardon, or no pardon, that is the question.
In this political climate, the Republican base is already angry with the president over immigration policy (among other things), and far-right voices are making clear that they not only want Bush to pardon Scooter Libby, they expect it.
Already, major conservative and neoconservative organizations, magazines and Web sites are expressing vexation that Mr. Bush has not granted clemency to Mr. Libby, who they say was unfairly railroaded for an initial leak that has now been traced to Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state.
“I don’t understand it,” said David Frum, a former speech writer for Mr. Bush who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group with close ties to the White House. “A lot of people in the conservative world are weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness here.”
A conservative with close ties to the administration, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, put it another way: “Letting Scooter go to jail would be a politically irrational symbol to the last chunk of the 29 percent upon which he stands,” a reference to the low percentage of Americans who tell pollsters they support Mr. Bush.
William Kristol is questioning the president’s character over this. William F. Buckley insisted Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice are a mere “triviality,” and argued that Bush should “exhibit the courage for which he is loved and hated, by doing the right thing, and letting Mr. Libby get on with life.”
Moreover, Kevin Drum had a good post the other day suggesting that a pardon, from the president’s perspective, should be an easy choice. It would placate the base, make Cheney happy, and stick it to White House critics. Even if it made Bush look worse, he’s a lame-duck president without much of a future anyway.
There is, of course, a flip side.
There are a variety of arguments against a pardon (besides the obvious one — Libby committed a number of serious crimes and deserves a just punishment). The NYT raised one.
A former senior administration official with his own ties to the case said Mr. Libby had failed to meet the general standard for a pardon by not showing contrition or serving any time. This official also noted that Mr. Libby had also been found guilty of lying to investigators, the same offense that led to the impeachment of Mr. Clinton.
The former official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the president, said: “It would show a deep disregard for the rule of law if he was to do it right now, when there has been no remorse shown by a convicted felon and no time has been served. How’s this going to fit in his long-term legacy?”
This probably isn’t the most persuasive of explanations — Bush’s disregard for the rule of law is already legendary.
But there are other reasons. First, Bush has said repeatedly that he’d just love to talk about what transpired in this scandal, but darn it all, he just can’t. It’s an “ongoing legal matter.” If he pardons Libby, it officially wraps up the controversy. His one and only dodge would no longer work.
Second, a pardon would bring the scandal into the Oval Office (even more so). It would necessarily give the impression that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. Even now, it’s frustratingly unclear why, exactly, Libby decided to lie so brazenly, which suggests that he’s covering up a more serious matter that might involve his only two WH bosses (the president and vice president). A pardon would exacerbate these suspicions.
So, what’s it going to be? Will Bush pardon Libby? If he does, what’s the political fallout? If he doesn’t, will the far-right GOP base ever forgive him?
Discuss.