Chutzpah from Las Vegas

By

There is certainly no shortage of chutzpah — that Yiddish word for outrageous nerve, often described as a killer of both his parents asking for clemency on the grounds that he is an orphan — among members of Congress. But the Senate Minority Leader from Nevada, Harry Reid surely takes the prize this week for his outlandish call for Bush and Cheney to "apologize" for their staffers' actions in the Plamegate case.
Apologize, that is, for telling the truth about Plame's below—the—management—radar nepotistic arrangement for her retired hubby to enjoy a taxpayer—sponsored trip to "sip sweet mint tea" with old cronies in Niger. Apologize for telling the truth about Wilson's supposed "report" on his "findings," discredited and debunked by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Rob Report —— and then used as the basis for an op—ed NY Times article making false accusations against the president.

The lead editorial in today's New York Sun entitled "Pardon Libby" offers some intelligent advice by which the Bush administration can seize the offensive against the chutzpah of Democrats seeking to assassinate the goody guys for outing the villains.

The Sun's editorialists base their ideas on the possibility that Libby was pressured to give up his Fifth Amendment rights against self—incrimination:

Now, perjury is a serious crime, but we don't discount for a moment the possibility — we'd even say likelihood — that Mr. Libby was telling the truth. Or that he was misremembering, telling an inaccurate story that he didn't know was false. American jurisprudence requires us to presume him innocent. But it is also possible that Mr. Libby subordinated his own Fifth Amendment rights to his duty to obey the president's instructions "to totally cooperate."

and, after also reviewing intent of the Founders and a particularly relevant opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, conclude:

So by our lights the right move would be for Mr. Bush to shut down this entire prosecution with a blanket pardon. He would not only be protecting his loyal staffer, he'd be protecting the office of the presidency itself from those who all along in this case have wanted to undercut the president's powers in a time of war.

Considering that the last election returned Mr. Bush to the Presidency by a significant margin as well as increasing his party's majority in both Houses, isn't it time to take the offensive, gather together the House and Senate majority leaders and whips, along with the Speaker, and begin to plan a bold strategy that is more suitable to winners than to wimps?

Richard N Weltz   10 31 05

Clarice Feldman notes the same editorial:

As the many of us study the bizarre indictment of Scooter Libby, the New York Sun makes a sound suggestion:Pardon Libby. If I'm not misreading Saturday's editorial in the Washington Post, which bears so much of the blame for this miscarriage of justice, that paper should be willing to endorse the idea.

There is certainly no shortage of chutzpah — that Yiddish word for outrageous nerve, often described as a killer of both his parents asking for clemency on the grounds that he is an orphan — among members of Congress. But the Senate Minority Leader from Nevada, Harry Reid surely takes the prize this week for his outlandish call for Bush and Cheney to "apologize" for their staffers' actions in the Plamegate case.
Apologize, that is, for telling the truth about Plame's below—the—management—radar nepotistic arrangement for her retired hubby to enjoy a taxpayer—sponsored trip to "sip sweet mint tea" with old cronies in Niger. Apologize for telling the truth about Wilson's supposed "report" on his "findings," discredited and debunked by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Rob Report —— and then used as the basis for an op—ed NY Times article making false accusations against the president.

The lead editorial in today's New York Sun entitled "Pardon Libby" offers some intelligent advice by which the Bush administration can seize the offensive against the chutzpah of Democrats seeking to assassinate the goody guys for outing the villains.

The Sun's editorialists base their ideas on the possibility that Libby was pressured to give up his Fifth Amendment rights against self—incrimination:

Now, perjury is a serious crime, but we don't discount for a moment the possibility — we'd even say likelihood — that Mr. Libby was telling the truth. Or that he was misremembering, telling an inaccurate story that he didn't know was false. American jurisprudence requires us to presume him innocent. But it is also possible that Mr. Libby subordinated his own Fifth Amendment rights to his duty to obey the president's instructions "to totally cooperate."

and, after also reviewing intent of the Founders and a particularly relevant opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, conclude:

So by our lights the right move would be for Mr. Bush to shut down this entire prosecution with a blanket pardon. He would not only be protecting his loyal staffer, he'd be protecting the office of the presidency itself from those who all along in this case have wanted to undercut the president's powers in a time of war.

Considering that the last election returned Mr. Bush to the Presidency by a significant margin as well as increasing his party's majority in both Houses, isn't it time to take the offensive, gather together the House and Senate majority leaders and whips, along with the Speaker, and begin to plan a bold strategy that is more suitable to winners than to wimps?

Richard N Weltz   10 31 05

Clarice Feldman notes the same editorial:

As the many of us study the bizarre indictment of Scooter Libby, the New York Sun makes a sound suggestion:Pardon Libby. If I'm not misreading Saturday's editorial in the Washington Post, which bears so much of the blame for this miscarriage of justice, that paper should be willing to endorse the idea.