OK, first off, what the President did — commuting Libby’s sentence so that he serves no jail time — is itself well within the law. Perhaps unwisely, the Founders did vest that power in the President and he gets to use it, even when it’s unseemly. Let’s leave that aside.

But if the President thinks Libby has been mistreated, why only commute the sentence? Why not pardon him outright? In the next few days, I predict you’ll see an apparent division in the rightwing noise machine. Don’t fall for it — it’s a sham. More below the fold.

Others on the right — and especially, others in the mainstream media, the Beltway jesters who enable this Administration — will commend Bush for his “Solomon-like” wisdom and forbearance, splitting the difference and so offering something to everyone: Sure, Libby does no jail time but at least he gets hit with a big fine. Sure, he isn’t pardoned, but the worst is taken area. Isn’t the President wise and just and fair?

I call BS on this whole meme. I didn’t think of the following, but once I saw it, I became pretty convinced it’s true. And on one level I have to admire the sheer audacity and Machiavellian flair to it. They couldn’t let Scooter do jail time, because he’d almost certainly “flip” and rat out the Vice President. People like Libby don’t face the prospect of jail very well. But if Bush had pardoned Libby, then by fact of law, Libby would no longer be under threat of self-incrimination. In other words, he couldn’t fall back on his Fifth Amendment rights… Since he was no longer at risk of incrimination, he could be compelled to testify. And suddenly the higher-ups are vulnerable.

So Bush “splits the middle”, looks like he compromised (which this President essentially never does), and secures Libby’s legal silence. They dodged a bullet. Meanwhile, Scooter writes his sanitized memoirs (probably coming out in the heat of the 08 campaign) and some sugar daddy takes care of his fine while some other Republican bigwig swings a lucrative job for him.

It’s dastardly and underhanded and absolutely brilliant. It’s also another nail in the coffin of the rule of law in America. Let’s be explicit: Perjure yourself in a civil lawsuit about a private matter, and the Heavens should fall on you. Perjure yourself about a leak that undermines national security in a desperate attempt to shore up support for a botched war of choice launched under false pretenses? No, no, that’s OK. Only in George W. Bush’s America! Oh, here and several other third-world countries ruled by tinhorn dictators.

(written 2007 0412; extended 2007 0413)
I’ll admit that this post is basically ripped off from Glenn Greenwald, whom you should read for details. I just wanted to collect all the points in a clean, stripped version. The subject? The amazing and disturbing “incompetence” demonstrated by the Bush administration in producing records that might put it in a bad light. How many times must we accept the excuse “The dog ate my homework” before everyone recognizes that this is actually criminal malfeasance. I know that you should “never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity” — but come on — this is passing from unbelievable to ridiculous:

How do they expect anyone to believe their story?

PS: If you have links to any similar events, I’d appreciate hearing them and I’ll add them to the list. And before the wingbats take over the comment space, yes, I’ve heard of Sandy Berger and yes, that was reprehensible. What’s your point?