Hooray for Dick Cheney. I've been meaning to blog on this since
the former Veep's CNN appearance on Sunday. Like the stand-up man
he is, Cheney backed his former aide Scooter Libby to the hilt
when asked whether Libby should have been pardoned by G.W. Bush.
Note that Cheney didn't just say that Libby was a good public
service, blah, blah, blah, as if good service excuses a crime.
Instead, Cheney flat-out said what I've been saying, which is
that Libby wasn't guilt at all.
"I think he's an innocent man who deserves a pardon," Cheney
said. "I believe firmly that Scooter was unjustlya ccused and
prosecuted and deserved a pardon.... We, in effect, left Scooter
sort of hanging in the wind, which i didn't think was
appropriate."
Bingo.
It should and will be a mark of shame on the already tarnished
record of G.W. Bush that he refused to pardon an innocent man who
was targeted for the sin of being a member of Bush's own
administration. If Libby had been part of Bush's inner circle,
you bleeping well know that Bush would have pardoned him. But
because he was a Cheney guy rather than directly a Bush guy, the
president let him rot. And that always has been the mantra of the
Bush family: Extreme loyalty to family hangers-on and sycophants,
no matter how unqualified, but no regard whatsoever to those who
aren't in the inner circle. Fred Barnes wrote about this when the
elder Bush took over from Reagan, noting that there was a clear
hierarchy as to who would get which jobs: First priority would go
to those who were with Bush way back in 1980, eight years
earlier, as if the entire Reagan presidency had not occurred.
I.e., a Bushie in 1980 with no serious distinguishing service in
between would outrank a Reagan guy who had served well for eight
years -- as if Bush didn't owe his entire presidency to the
Gipper. Same thing here: People like Michael Brown and Al
Gonzales and Harriet Miers and Scott McClellan get kept well
beyond their useful shelf-life, while good people like Scooter
Libby are thrown to the wolves.
Bush didn't show much loyalty to the Conservative base who
elected him, either; almost wore it as a badge of honor. I'm with
you Quin--I'm so over the 'compassionate conservative'.
Martin| 3.18.09 @ 6:22PM
If you don't want another loser, you have to do something about
the nominating process, which produced six totally inadequate
candidates in a row in 1988-2008, even having had the experience
of what a good leader could do.
Iowa needs to be made to vote 48th or so, not first. Consistently
promotes loser candidates and damages good ones. Phil Gramm or
Steve Forbes would have been FINE Presidents.
ruth| 3.18.09 @ 2:59PM
Bush didn't show much loyalty to the Conservative base who elected him, either; almost wore it as a badge of honor. I'm with you Quin--I'm so over the 'compassionate conservative'.
Martin| 3.18.09 @ 6:22PM
If you don't want another loser, you have to do something about the nominating process, which produced six totally inadequate candidates in a row in 1988-2008, even having had the experience of what a good leader could do.
Iowa needs to be made to vote 48th or so, not first. Consistently promotes loser candidates and damages good ones. Phil Gramm or Steve Forbes would have been FINE Presidents.