Never big on Parthian shots, I like giving Parthian pats on the back.
There's puh-lenty to throw at Bush now that he's left office (and while he was in it), and likely the throwing will start soon. But it's worth a pause to note something Bush did not do: he did not pardon Scooter Libby.
And why, did he not pardon Scooter? In fact, where were all the pardons that we usually see at the end of a Presidency?
According to this article in The Weekly Standard, there are (at least) two reasons which may have contributed to Bush's decision not to pardon Scooter.
Number 1: Bush seems to think Scooter was guilty.
When Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence in the summer of 2007, he issued a statement that suggested a pardon for Libby would be unlikely. "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said at the time, noting only that he found the sentence "excessive." He added: "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting." Earlier, Bush had praised special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for running his investigation in "a very dignified way."
Number 2: Bush doesn't think people should get pardons just because they know people in high places. In an interview on Larry King Live, Nancy Pelosi described what Bush said about this at Breakfast the morning of the Obama Inauguration:
Larry King: Were you surprised the outgoing president issued no pardons.
Pelosi: I spoke to him about that yesterday at breakfast before we came to the Capitol and he was very proud of that. He said people who have gotten pardons are usually people who have influence or know friends in high places--is not available to ordinary people. So he was very proud of that. It was interesting. He thought that there was more access for some than others and he was not going to do any.
The article also states that Bush may have been worried about a public relations disaster which would follow from pardoning Libby; but that's not different from saying it would be an indefensible action.
A hat tip where it is due: Bush's skipping pardons for those who have powerful friends gives me probably the only opportunity I've had to compare Bush favorably with Abraham Lincoln, who had this exchange:
During the Civil War, President Lincoln was besieged with appeals for pardons for soldiers caught in the machinery of military discipline. Such appeals were usually supported by letters from influential people. One day, Lincoln found on his desk a single sheet of paper -- an appeal from a soldier without any supporting documents. "What? Has this man no friends?" exclaimed the President. "No, sir," said the adjutant, "not one." Lincoln sighed. "Then I will be his friend."
Of course, Lincoln handled the situation by befriending the friendless, while Bush leaves the friended and friendless out entirely -- the lazy choice.
But, lazy or not -- it is honorable to treat the influentially friended and the friendless identically before justice.