Loose Lips, Sinking Ships, and Why Bush Won’t Pardon Libby

(from here)
Much has been written about the Scooter Libby verdict, so I don’t have much commentary to add. However, I will make a prediction: Bush will not pardon Libby. Here’s why:

The lord of the manor does not sacrifice himself for the serfs.

Underneath all the ‘jus’ people’ duds, Bush is an aristocrat. He possesses the aristocrat’s overweening sense of entitlement combined with a feral cunning used to preserve that prerogative. Little Lord Pontchartrain might actually feel for Libby, but he has been taught his entire life how to avoid becoming upset over the little people’s problems (that he might well be a clinical sociopath just makes this easier).
This is what fucking royals do.
There’s no pardon coming.

This entry was posted in Fucking Royals, Little Lord Pontchartrain. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Loose Lips, Sinking Ships, and Why Bush Won’t Pardon Libby

  1. Joe Shelby says:

    Well, most pardons are based on recommendations – there’s no way the pardon idea would come to him independently.
    I do think its likely that Libby’s name will come up in January 2009 at the end of the Bush term. By then, Libby will probably be into his second round of appeals (and likely still free) and Bush may just do it just to get closure on his administration lest it hang over and disturb the legacy-building he seems to have in mind regarding his 10-times-as-expensive-as-any-other-president’s library (full of censored books and altered histories, likely).

  2. Eric Juve says:

    Libby fancies himself as a writer, a long jail term would give both the time and incentive to write a book that would sell like hotcakes, I think GW has to pardon him just to save himself.

  3. Joshua says:

    I doubt very much that Bush would waste a pardon on any collaborator less than Cheney or perhaps one of his cabinet cronies like Rice or another high-level op like Ashcroft/Gonzales. But even that’s iffy.

  4. John McKay says:

    I agree; there’s no pardon in the works. For Bush, loyalty is a one way street. Besides, Libby talked. He’s on the outside now. Libby is more likely to get a good swiftboating than he is to get a pardon. That’s not to say that Libby doesn’t have a few blackmail facts up his sleeve to compel a pardon…
    As to the legacy building, why would Bush want to remind everybody of Libby at the very moment that we’re all supposed to think of something nice to say about him.

  5. llewelly says:

    Allowing Libby to be punished will be equivalent to admitting the administration’s treatment of Wilson was wrong.
    Never admitting error is very important to Bush.

  6. blf says:

    An alternative–and I’m uncertain how serious I am in pointing this out–is that Libby will, ah, “commit suicide”. Albeit probably not with Polonium-210.

  7. Barry says:

    No, giving Libby a pardon will involve no admission of wrong-doing by Bush. He, his spokesman, high-level members of the administration, most of the MSM, the entire AM radio spectrum and all Bush sycophants will chant that Libby was framed for a non-crime. Basically, take what the right said about Clinton and change ‘day’ to ‘night’.
    It would be best for the GOP if the pardon came after the 2008 election, but the way things are going, it might not matter. And after the election, it’s as close to cost-free as anything in this world ever is.
    Please remember that Bush I pardoned the Iran-Contra criminials in late December, 1992, and thereby ended the investigation (due to Walsh not having the killer desire that Starr did). And the guys that he pardoned were being pressured to testify against Bush, so the pardon was of direct benefit to Bush.
    The only awkwardness would be if Libby’s appeals are exhausted before November, 2008, and he really, really doesn’t want to do time. Considering that Fitzgerald seems to be closing down the investigation, Libby might be in a weaker position – all that he could do is to embarrass people, and those guys just don’t embarrass easily (if at all).

  8. whig says:

    So true. Prescience by scientist.

Comments are closed.