You're where I am on this.... but. I understand the consequences, political and otherwise, of President Bush pardoning Libby now, but we all know it's the right thing to do. However there's more than one "right thing," particularly at this level of responsibility. I know that the President knows that it's not right to leave Libby hanging out there. But he is constrained by the other responsibilities that he has. It comes down to the cost, not to him, but to other things that both he and Libby have taken oaths to put before their own interests.
There is a quote I go back to often from a movie with Ben Kingsley (The Confession). His character has killed the doctor who killed his young son by operating on him while drunk. He's turned himself in and refuses to take a plea deal, preferring to get the truth out about flaws not only in his victim's but more importantly in the system that allowed them to do what they did and then go without punishment. It's a complex and ultimately flawed film, but it tackles the questions of dealing with competing "right things" as well as the inevitable corrupt self interest that also must be dealt with. The moral quandry of the movie is summed up in this line:
"People often think that it is hard to do the right thing. It is not hard to do the right thing; it is hard to know what the right thing is. Once you know what is right, then it is hard to not do the right thing.”
I think the right thing to do is pardon Libby now and not only live with the consequences but use the firestorm as a launching place for a counterattack against those enemies, foreign and domestic, who are waging war against decent people trying to do their jobs. I also know that the President has just a bit more information about what the real costs of that will be to other things that are ultimately far more important, in the grand scheme of things. I, for one, still trust George W. Bush and will defer to his judgment, even if I do still feel free to express my opinions, flawed though I admit they may be.
As importantly, based on what Libby has said and done (or not said and not done) I think that is his position, as well.
This could be "the" post of the thread!
Very well said. Truth is there is no down side to standing up to the rats at this point since they demagogue ,lie, cheat and spin everything we do anyway! Why not stand up against tyranny which is what Fitzputz gave us and call a spade a spade.
I agree that is the right thing to do. From our perspective. The President sees things at a higher level than us. What do you think he will do?
I think he will not pardon him. The reason for this will be his reluctance to "undo" the law, despite it being a flawed show trial to begin with. I don't think he'll worry too much over the politics of it (in other words, he wouldn't care if in pardoning Libby the dems and the DBM popped a gasket), but Pres Bush just won't wish to tarnish the Presidency that way. I think his thinking will be that a President must always act cooly, and rash decisions made politically are normally not correct and weakens the aura of the position.
Folks often think he is weak or too quiet about the rantings of the democrats but I honestly think he feels as President he should never stoop to their level.
And I wish he would give them both barrels daily!
Right on!
I'm glad that I continued reading through the thread and did not miss this post.
It can be hard to determine what the right thing is to do, but when it smacks you right in the face, then you are compelled to do it or, if you have a conscience, how do you live with it.
Libby was convicted of obstructing justice. The prosecuter talked about him throwing sand in the umpire's eyes. The prosecuter already knew there was no crime and who committed the act. You cannot kick any dust in the face of an investigation that knows the answer to the question. How do you obstruct the law getting to the truth when the law already knows the truth?