The Wall Street Journal has begun the movement to get Bush and Cheney pardoned. They aren't even being honest about it at this point in time. In a piece talking about what Pres. Ford faced and how he handled it one can feel the meme that will follow in the coming days and months. Of course the discussion goes on to explain and rationalize why Ford pardoned Nixon with not one word of the damage it has caused in the long run.
Watergate's Lesson on Crises, Closure and Moving On
At the outset of his presidency, as he tried to run a country in turmoil and economic distress, Gerald Ford faced a critical decision: Should he allow an emotional legal ordeal to proceed, knowing it would leave the country mired in a deeply divisive debate left over from the previous administration? Or should he make a tough decision to move forward instead?
Democrats now find themselves in a very similar position, this time on the question of whether terrorism suspects were tortured.
Can you feel it creeping into the debate yet ? Not a single word is discussed about how the pardon gave following Presidents the feeling they could get away with anything. Both Reagan and Bush I broke numerous laws including IranContra and more. I believe we can safely believe that Bush was positive that his "permanent majority" would win the Presidency when his term was up, allowing him to be pardoned if needed. Pres. Obamas election has thrown a real monkey wrench into those plans. That has not stopped the Right from throwing this out into the arena of discussion for their Tea Baggers to pickup and run with.
So he pre-emptively pardoned Mr. Nixon in hopes of allowing the country to move on. Mr. Ford paid an enormous political price in the short term; indeed, he probably lost the 1976 election as a result. But in the long run, history has vindicated him almost entirely.
Today's situation is hardly identical, of course. The Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up were tawdry domestic political crimes, while torture poses broader moral questions with international implications. But in their ability to affect how the government spends its time and energy, and what price is paid in the meantime, the quandaries are similar.
As you can tell I take issue with the first underlined part .(done by me) The second underlined part at least shows the author is aware that this is about much bigger crimes than Nixon was busted for. The piece goes on to point out how dangerous the wacky left is to Obama, how loud, angry, pushy, and bloodlusting we can be. Because the Fair Use rules I can't quote much more but it's not needed, you get the point. While they never come right out and mention anything about Obama pardoning Bush I still felt like I needed a shower after reading the piece. It ends with this parting reminder.
... Mr. Ford, Mr. Korologos says, "smelled what could have been a horrendous Washington event" in a Nixon trial. He decided it would be better for the country to forgo that event.
More than that, he adds, Mr. Ford concluded it would be better for his own agenda: "We were in the middle of an inflation fight. We were in the middle of a lot of international issues. It would have sucked the air out of a whole lot of goals he pursued."
That is the danger Mr. Obama faces as well.
Threat, warning or just friendly advice ?The whole thing is so backhandedly dishonest who could know ? So the question of the day (so far ) is would you stick with Obama if he pardoned the Bush Admin. ? I would personally have to look elsewhere for the next Pres. I don't believe it would be healthy to let another criminal Pres. walk away scot-free, but I don't believe Pres. Obama is going to Pardon Bush. I do think he has at least thought about it as a option and in a sense this diary is to measure what might happen if he did.