WSJ: Libby pardon "a two-day story"

While arguing for a pardon of Scooter Libby, the Wall Street Journal editorial page asserts that it would be "a two-day story":

General Pace's fate is one more example of Mr. Bush's recent habit of abandoning those most closely identified with his Iraq policy. Paul Wolfowitz received only tepid support from Treasury while he was besieged at the World Bank, while I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby may soon go to jail because the President has refused to pardon him. With Mr. Libby, what is Mr. Bush afraid of--jeopardizing his 33% approval rating? A pardon would be a two-day story. His opponents can't hate Mr. Bush more than they already do, and his supporters would cheer to see the President standing by the man who stood by him when others in his Administration cut and ran.

Pardoning a man who was convicted of lying to the FBI, has expressed no remorse, and served no jail time would be a two-day story? Really? Let's just say that there are good reasons to think the WSJ is wrong:

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

But the president's power to pardon federal crimes under Article II of the Constitution is essentially unrestricted, so he can ignore the guidelines. Other presidents who did so stirred furors, most prominently when Gerald R. Ford pardoned his Watergate-stained predecessor, Richard M. Nixon; when George H.W. Bush issued his Iran-contra pardons; and when Bill Clinton in his last hours in office pardoned financier Marc Rich, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, his brother Roger Clinton and scores of others.

Also, while the WSJ sneers at the possibility, President Bush probably is scared of jeopardizing his 33% approval rating. He's already approaching historic lows, and a Gallup poll in March found that only 21% of Americans think Libby should be pardoned. A Libby pardon might endear him to movement conservatives, but at a very high cost.

Comments

[Neil]

a Gallup poll in March found that only 21% of Americans think Libby should be pardoned.

So it's only the neocon central, the op-ed pages of the WSJ, the WaPo and Byron York's rag that's completely out of touch with what 'convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers' means in America.

It also means that of the 33% of Americans aproving of Bush's performance, less than 2/3rds of them would approve of a pardon for Libby. That gives me some confidence that Bush will reach 21% before long.