JOURNAL: Current | Archives | Previous | Next

Huh?

I love the Washington Post sometimes. On some matters (say, Vice-President Cheney's argument of executive prerogative regarding energy policy meetings) the paper can hardly stand that the Administration is exercising powers reserved to the executive branch. But the paper is up in arms over the fact that President Bush has not used the power of clemency once during his Presidency! In fact, not using the power "is an abdication" the editors argue.

They surmise that President Bush has declined to use the power because of the scandalous behavior of President Clinton in his final days, and they just can't refrain from getting in a dig at former President Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger, which many people agreed was a good idea at the time. In any case, it was a principled pardon, in contrast to many of Mr. Clinton's last minute pardons.

But worse, there's no evidence that President Bush has declined to use the power for that reason! As the editors admit, President Clinton didn't use the power his first year in office either. So I wonder if the Post called THAT an "abdication" at the time? Anyone with Lexis-Nexis care to check that out?

This just looks like a poorly reasoned cheap shot at the President, especially with the headline "The Unforgiving Mr. Bush." Given my belief that rhetoric usually has some purpose or end, I wonder what they were trying to accomplish with this piece?

[Posted at 21:36 CST on 02/09/02] [Link]

Movable Type

If you can read this, your browser does not fully comply with standards. You can still view the site via the navigation bar below.

Reductio (old) | Journal | Glossary | Search | Bio | Photos | Disclaimer