Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell. Full Story »
Posted by Julian Friedland
This is good editorial journalism. While it presents an opinion that may or may not be seen as partisan, it provides irrefutable facts to back up that opinion. The facts sited for the most part have been hashed out through the judicial system with decisions rendered by an impartial jury and a Bush appointed judge. The NYT being the newspaper of record in this country summarized these facts on its editorial page, which is part of its duty as a member of the 4th estate. There have been few more important instances I can think of in my lifetime where editorial journalism of this type are more appropriate. Editorializing is exactly what is called for here.
A predictable reaction to a predictable two-part action by Bush. Part one, commute his sentence using all the transparent stereotypical Carl Rove justificationsrespect jurys decision, etc. Part two, make a mockery of part ones justifications when Bush pardons Libby just before leaving office. However, this action assures Libbys silenceno ratting on the ones who are really responsible.
The hypocrisy of the baldly political commutation of Libby's jail sentence is well sumarized in the ironic light of campaign BS about being tough on crime. Paris Hilton spent more time in jail than Mr I.L.L. Jr.
For an opinion piece, it is quite well-sourced and informative, even mentioning the trivia of Clinton's attempt to cover a personal matter in comparison to this cover of a serious political matter. It gives an opinion, but includes facts on both sides.
Appallingly bad even by the NY Times' plummeting standards. A good editorial acknowledges the best arguments on the other side and addresses them - this one does not. A good editorial looks at a bigger picture (i.e. Bill Clinton's perjury) - this one does not. Valid points have been raised about Fitzgerald's pursuing a leak case when he already knew the answer - not mentioned. This is partisan hackery.
A standard NYT opinion piece, intellectually uninspired and predictably partisan. As a rallying cry for its own "base" it will do fine, but for the independent thinker there's nothing to chew on here.
since it is an editorial, "good journalism" is perhaps not its aim. It clearly sets forth what good liberals should, says the NYT, believe. It just does not argue a not particularly good case very well.
Retrieving Comments
