The Most Ridiculous Editorial Ever?

I can only conclude that this is a canned editorial that sits on somebody's hard drive somewhere, only to be brought out if the Washington Post has an empty space on its editorial page and no big issue stirring anyone's juices.

The Post is complaining that George W. Bush hasn't pardoned enough criminals during his term. The Post cites not one instance where and injustice needs undoing. It just compares the number of pardons issued by Bush to selected previous presidents. The Post even admits that, at the same point in the Clinton Administration, even fewer pardons had been issued, but no matter, Bush is a bad guy because he doesn't return enough convicts to the streets.

In December Mr. Bush issued 11 pardons, bringing his total to 71 pardons and sentence commutations. The recent actions follow his usual pattern. All involved old crimes; the most recent conviction is a decade old, and one happened way back in 1950. Most involved minor offenses -- a bank robbery from 1964 being a notable exception. None required the president to take a stand of any kind. They involved, rather, no political risk.

The closest that the Post gets to a substantive criticism is that they think that drug laws are too harsh.

I agree with that, but don't you think that a president that better things to do than comb the federal prison system for drug to release?