Aside from a few in passing remarks on Scooter Libby, I have not formally taken a position on Bush's use of Executive Clemency since it happened.  I have mostly been concerned with the media and political frenzy about it, particularly the hypocrisy of the Clintons.

I had a letter in the PI printed when I took the Editorial Board to task for the same sin:  Frenzied hypocrisy.  I was, I noted, not the only one to do so.

I was surprised to get a snail mail letter today, from an unidentified Seattle-ite taking me in turn to task.  See the actual letter to the left (Click for full size).

My anonymous friend has a good point, even if his target is misplaced.

Let's take a look, shall we?

Hey, Karl, old friend, if you're going to ask others to be fair, you ought to abide by the same standard yourself.

I completely agree.  And had you actually read the letter, you would see I was.  Read on.

It's extremely unfair and dishonest to compare Clinton's pardons with Bush's since the vast majority of Clinton's pardons (like most presidents') came at the end of his term.

That is not totally true, he only did about 140 in the last days, a bit less then a third.  Let's look at his numbers:

• Total acts of clemency- 457
• His last day- 144
• subtotal prior to Jan 2001- 313

That means prior to that last day in Jan 2001 he had granted clemency to 69% of his total.

But to be fair, how many at his 6 year mark, or there abouts?  I charted his list, and stopped counting at July 1999, his equivalent time.  He granted clemency on December 23, 1999, February 19, 2000, March 15, 2000, July 7, 2000, October 20, 2000, November 21, 2000 and December 22, 2000 for a total of 154 grants.  That leaves 159 total at 6 years, compared to Bush's 117. 

At the 6 year stage, where Bush is now, Clinton had given very few pardons.  Almost all of his came in the last few days, just before leaving office.

Nope, only about a third.  And it bears noting that at 6 years Clinton was 27% percent higher then Bush is now. 

Now…here is the fun part:  it doesn't matter, because his total was not my premise, nor was it to compare then two president's records. 

My letter specifically dealt with one fact:   That when the PI Said that "President Bush's commutation of a pal's prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system" they were stretching things, considering all the shocking acts committed by Clinton.  By comparison, Bush's act was nothing.

Isn't it curious that you somehow forgot to mention those facts in your letter in today's P-I.  guess they just must've slipped your mind.

Not really.  As you can see I have the facts.  I had a limited space to make my point as the PI has a word limit on letter to the editor.  My point was not necessarily that Bush was better and Clinton worse.  It was that the outrage over Bush was hypocritical and partisan in nature compared to the historical record.

I also clearly noted that there was plenty of room to debate whether Bush was justified in doing what he did.  Was that not fair enough?

The real issue here is Libby's pardon.  But you dodged that.  Golly, I wonder why.  Could it be because it's indefensible?

Actually it is not.  First of all, Libby was not pardoned, he had his sentence commuted.

Big difference.  Please stick to the actual events.

And I did write a blog on my thoughts on his conviction here.  I do believe the trial was a sham, and he was a scapegoat.  I find it hard to believe he was deliberately lying to cover up nothing, as Cheney was never guilty of anything, Armitage was.  And since Armitage was not charged, it means it was not a crime, so apparently he was lying to protect someone who didn't commit a crime that never happened.

But I was hoping for an appeal and vindication on the merits, so I did NOT advocate any kind of clemency.  I believe in the system we call justice, and justice had spoken.

Bush chose otherwise, and frankly while I agree in principle that it was justified, I do not think Bush should have done it.

All of which is irrelevant, as I was taking the PI to task over its feigned gloating outrage.  The liberals have been having a hypocritical field day.

Let's wait till Bush finishes his term.  If he's like most Presidents. there will be a rush of pardons in the last few days.

I look forward to your letter giving the final score then.

I'll be happy to oblige.  I will not be overtly shocked if his numbers climb, as most presidents have done.  So what?  As I said that is not relevant to my letter.

But somehow, I don't think it will ever some.  Because it will be too embarrassing.

As ever,

(signed J)

As you will see I was most fair with the facts and the situation.  More fair then you were to send this with no way to respond.  I wish you had signed it, but all I can do is hope you see this someday.

As for embarrassment, I am not concerned.  I will happily address any facts I state and any mistakes I make.

And I did make one.  I quoted them as saying "the" most shocking when they said "a" most shocking.  Mea Culpa.

Your accusations fall short, but they do help illustrate Part 3 of my series on how liberals think.  The veiled insults and refusal to address what I said, and the refusal to debate fairly by not leaving an avenue to debate at all are pretty symptomatic of the tactics liberals enjoy.

Thanks, old friend, whoever you are.  You made part 3 the easiest of them all.