Bush Surprises.

Filed in National by on January 19, 2009

I suppose he figures his legacy has enough image problems.

From Newsweek:

In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.

On Bush’s last full day as president, Bush did commute the sentence of two former Border Patrol agents–Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos–for shooting a Mexican drug dealer and then lying about it. But White House press spokesman Tony Fratto told NEWSWEEK “you should not expect any more” pardons and commutations from Bush before he leaves office Tuesday. Another senior official, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters, confirmed that no more pardons would be granted.

Bush’s decision leaves a long line of rejected pardon applicants, many of whom have retained politically well-connected Washington lawyers, to make their case for presidential mercy in Bush’s final days in the White House. Among them were junk-bond king Michael Milken, media mogul Conrad Black, former Illinois GOP governor George Ryan and former Louisiana Democratic governor Edwin Edwards. Bush also apparently turned down a last-minute plea from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski to pardon her former GOP colleague Ted Stevens for his recent political corruption conviction.

Bush cares greatly about his legacy, and he has often said that history will record his actions to be correct, despite their unpopularity now, much like Truman is revered today while hugely unpopular when he left office (although not as unpopular as Bush now is). So I guess preemptively pardoning himself, Cheney or his underlings, or excusing the official misconduct of cronies might be too much for him to do, since he knows the reaction would not be kind.

About the Author ()

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    I won’t believe he’s done until he’s gone.

    Because who is going to believe that this guy discovered decision-making restraint 12 hours before he’s unemployed?

  2. pandora says:

    I’m skeptical as well.

  3. Unstable Isotope says:

    Perhaps the Toussie pardon scandal spooked him. If so, hooray for the leftwing noise machine.

  4. Truth Teller says:

    he’s still pres. untill noon tomorrow

  5. Geezer says:

    Where does the notion that Truman is “revered today” come from? He’s no longer considered a disaster, but he’s hardly made the first, or even second, rank. He’s a long way from revered.

  6. Delaware Dem says:

    Well, I guess it is my opinion. Perhaps “revered” is too strong a word, but he is respected and considered one of our better Presidents.

    I consider him to be in the top 10.

  7. edisonkitty says:

    On the Bush front, not granting any further pardons is hardly enough to counter the damage done during the course of his administration. And he still has several hours to do some. We will see.

    As for Truman, I too have a favorable opinion and would rank him in the top 10.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Truman usually ends up in the top 10 of the various rankings of Presidents that get done periodically. That probably doesn’t count as revered, but I wonder if the David McCulloch-izing of Truman has something to do with the perceived reverence quotient?

  9. nemski says:

    This pardon-less exit of Bush’s is meaningless. He’s still the worst.president.ever.

  10. Geezer says:

    “I consider him to be in the top 10.”

    Well, I looked it up, and until now I didn’t realize so many people were so wrong about him.

  11. X Stryker says:

    It’s a small measure of consistency. Both as governor of Texas and as president, he issued fewer pardons (or commutes, or clemencies) than any of his last five or so predecessors, I believe. I don’t know whether that counts as having “principles” or whether its just another aspect of his legendary stubbornness.

  12. Rebecca says:

    Bingo Xstyker — he’s just pure cuss’ed.

    What can you expect from the offspring of somebody who looked out over a sea of suffering people and proclaimed that “this is working out well for them” as Barbara did when she saw the Katrina refugees in Houston. ICK! These people wouldn’t know compassion if it came and bit them in the ass.

  13. Delaware Dem says:

    The bigger question is why does Geezer hate Truman?

  14. Mike Protack says:

    Bush handled the issue of pardons with grace unlike the previous President.

    At one point Bush reversed a pardon because of undue political nonsense, again unlike the previous President.

  15. nemski says:

    Thanks for chiming in Mike-Protack-Spam-Robot.

  16. Dana says:

    I know that this thought has never occurred to y’all, but President Bush didn’t issue pre-emptive pardons for members of his administration because he did not believe that they had done anything either wrong or illegal.

    Remember how y’all were whining about unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps? Well, as Sharon noted, the FISA Court itself — the one to which warrant applications would be made — decided that no, the warrantless wiretaps were neither unconstitutional nor illegal:

    Ever since the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was exposed in 2005, critics have denounced it as illegal and unconstitutional. Those allegations rested solely on the fact that the Administration did not first get permission from the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Well, as it happens, the same FISA court would beg to differ.

    In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government’s Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency’s monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on search and seizure.

    But the Constitution bans only “unreasonable” search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President’s Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that “the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance.” The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information” and took “for granted” that “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

  17. nemski says:

    Dana wrote President Bush didn’t issue pre-emptive pardons for members of his administration because he did not believe that they had done anything either wrong or illegal.

    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

  18. Geezer says:

    And you’re both wrong, as is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, from which you quote.

    Glenn Greenwald — an actual Constitutional lawyer, unlike you or your sources — had this to say last week:

    the court’s ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Bush acted legally or properly when he ordered warrantless eavesdropping on Americans from 2001-2006, when warrantless eavesdropping was a felony under FISA. To the contrary … the FISA court was addressing a totally different and much narrower question: namely, whether the warrantless eavesdropping which Congress authorized in the 2007 Protect America Act was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

    The ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with the central question at the heart of the NSA controversy: namely, whether Bush committed felonies by ordering warrantless eavesdropping in the face of a Congressional statute that explicitly made such eavesdropping a felony.

    The link:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/20/media/

    Do me a favor, Dana and Sharon — try to avoid an ad hominem attack in your inevitable response.

  19. pandora says:

    Geezer brings it home!

    Dana, does hit a point. Bush thinks he’s right – what a shocker!

  20. cassandra_m says:

    Very good, Geezer — that ruling is very narrow.

    But it doesn’t matter much, since sometime around 12:01 this afternoon the entire group of right wing deadenders will suddenly believe that warrentless eavesdropping is now illegal and wrong. It won’t take long — the expansive powers that Bush and Cheney grabbed will suddenly be beyond the pale.