Letters to the Editor
-
False logic on the hypocrisy argument
It seems like a good logical argument that Hornet Driver makes. If you didn't scream bloody murder when Clinton pardonned a criminal, it's hypocritical to scream it now.
But the argument is indicative of so much of what stands for debate right now. Because this accusation almost demands a different debate. The debate veers off from this instance into a whole world of possibilities. The problem is none of them have substance.
Let me put is this way, in grabbing hold of this argument, we get left with this the following:
a> all pardons must be judged not on current merits, but in historical context of all previous pardons.
b> all criticism of pardons must be judged on previous criticisms of previous pardons.
c> the only voice that could possibly debate this pardon is someone who slammed the pardons of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan... (ID required to prove age, and ability to comment on previous presidential pardons).
Paradoxically, Scooter Libby wouldn't be allowed in this debate. Since he was Marc Rich's lawyer and thus, most likely, didn't protest the pardon of his former client, he wouldn't be allowed to even comment on his own pardon.
I don't know about you all, but I wish debates went back to being substantive.