Aside from a few in passing remarks on Scooter Libby, I have not formally taken a position on Bush’s use of Executive Clemency since it happened.  I have mostly been concerned with the media and political frenzy about it, particularly the hypocrisy of the Clintons.

I had a letter in the PI printed when I took the Editorial Board to task for the same sin:  Frenzied hypocrisy.  I was, I noted, not the only one to do so.

I was surprised to get a snail mail letter today, from an unidentified Seattle-ite taking me in turn to task.  See the actual letter to the left (Click for full size).

My anonymous friend has a good point, even if his target is misplaced.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

Hey, Karl, old friend, if you’re going to ask others to be fair, you ought to abide by the same standard yourself.

I completely agree.  And had you actually read the letter, you would see I was.  Read on.

It’s extremely unfair and dishonest to compare Clinton’s pardons with Bush’s since the vast majority of Clinton’s pardons (like most presidents’) came at the end of his term.

That is not totally true, he only did about 140 in the last days, a bit less then a third.  Let’s look at his numbers:

• Total acts of clemency- 457
• His last day- 144
• subtotal prior to Jan 2001- 313

That means prior to that last day in Jan 2001 he had granted clemency to 69% of his total.

But to be fair, how many at his 6 year mark, or there abouts?  I charted his list, and stopped counting at July 1999, his equivalent time.  He granted clemency on December 23, 1999, February 19, 2000, March 15, 2000, July 7, 2000, October 20, 2000, November 21, 2000 and December 22, 2000 for a total of 154 grants.  That leaves 159 total at 6 years, compared to Bush’s 117. 

I mentioned to a commenter that the San Francisco City decision to ban water was not about money, it was about the feel good loution of banning those silly plastic bottles.  Forget recycling, just ban them.

Feel better?

They seem to forget that whent he pollution craze was in high rotation, the elite liberals were the ones toting thier Evian around and started the “water purity” craze.   Now, a few billion bottles later, it’s bad.  Thanks for starting the very craze you now want to ban.

They also forgot who owns a bottled water company.  Via Newsbusters:

ABC Bashes Bottled Water Companies, Ignores the One RFK Jr. Owns

As the Business and Media Institute reported, ABC’s “World News” on Sunday castigated people for drinking bottled water.

Yet, it seems the folks at ABC weren’t aware that environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., actually owns a – wait for it! – bottled water company (h/t to NBers lumberjack and dscott).

As BMI’s Jeff Poor reported Monday:

“With every sip are you actually hurting the environment?” teased anchor Dan Harris.

Deliciously, the New York Times reported on June 3, 1999, the formation of a new venture by Kennedy (emphasis added):

IT is a seemingly incongruous image: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — crusading environmental lawyer, member of the famous Kennedy dynasty and potential political candidate — in a meeting with local supermarket executives to persuade them to distribute a new product.

But the product has a catch that helps the picture make sense. Keeper Springs’ Mountain Spring Water is being introduced to finance efforts to preserve and protect local waterways nationwide.”This is not just about selling a bottled water, it’s about getting out a message,” Mr. Kennedy said during an interview at Pace University Law School’s Environmental Litigation Clinic Inc., where he runs a team that has successfully won more than 150 legal actions totaling more than $1 billion in judgments against polluters of the Hudson River over the last decade. The cleanup of the Hudson River is now a national environmental model.