For quite a while I have thought that Cheney & Bush ought not only to be impeached but put in the dock at the Hague. The Scooter Libby pardon is obscene, brazen, for precisely the reasons Mr. Blumenthal gives.

Bush & Cheney falsify intelligence in order to foment a war that is among the worst follies ever committed in American foreign policy; they compel people like Tenant & Powell to take one for the coach(es); Cheney keeps a kind of enemies list (like Nixon), w/ Bush's indulgence; they both conspire to destroy the career of an incidental & completely anodyne woman (Valerie Plame) to punish a man (her husband) who dissents.

Now for a bit of nostalgia.

Here is G.W. Bush, on April 27, 2000, speaking at the D.C. Armory before a GOP fund-raiser that hauled in $21 million for his (non)election campaign:

"My goal is to change the tone of Washington so the Bob Kerreys of this world, the reform-minded Democrats and Republicans, will know that I'm coming to this town to get some problems solved and then gracefully retire to Texas."

Laughter at it now goes down so bitterly as to incline one to choke not (let us say) on the food served at that April 27, 2000 fund-raiser, of which I kept a record from an AP report, but at a mere citation of it:

"Grilled tenderloin medallion and horseradish-encrusted filet of red snapper & demitasse; creamy goat cheese medallions; roasted garlic; broccollini."

Dig in, Bush, perennial "presidential-hopeful" that you are, never even having properly been treated to an after-campaign-dinner election. "Retire gracefully to Texas"? No: Eat crow. With goat cheese medallions of "freedom." And retire ignominiously to that cell they put Jefferson Davis in, circa 1865.

--Mark Richardson

Amen to Mr. Blumenthal for telling it like it is. In stark contrast to neocon David Brooks who, in a New York Times puff piece (“Ending the Farce”), invents a "five act" re-enactment of the Libby "Farce," In this piece, itself a farce, Brooks conveniently omits the most important scene of the entire alleged "play." That is, the scene in Act Four where a jury of Mr. Libby's peers, acting out the most fundamental function of our justice system, finds Mr. Libby guilty of and convicts him on four felony counts. It is the President's flouting of our judicial system that has turned the Libby case indeed into a farce.

Armitage was granted immunity before testifying. And immunity means that you can't then be charged with the crime for which you were granted ... immunity. Duh. Not that anyone left of the administration is pleased about that, buyt some of us are required to follow the law.

As for who actually outed Plame: Armitage *and* Libby both leaked her name and occupation to several journalists. Go read the transcripts. Judy Miller, Robert Novak, Cooper, and, by God, yes, Tim Russert all testified against Scooter.

The lefts talking points need a breath of fresh air. If the right points to Clinton pardons, the left needs to point to former President George H W Bush actions. The right points to the Rich pardon (omitting Libby was Rich's lawyer), the left should point to former President GHW Bush's pardon to Edwin Cox Jr., whose family contributed nearly $200,000 to the Bush family's campaigns and to Republican campaign committees from 1980 to 2000. And perhaps to the more astounding Iran Contra pardons including his Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, a highly unusual pardon before trial and conviction. As well as Elliott Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George, all former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency and 18 other individuals who were not involved in the Iran-Contra affair. Stop defending Clinton's actions and move on to GHW Bush's pardons. And if the right persists then the left must demand a "Ken Starr" Independent Counsel to be chosen by the three-judge panel and not by the administration under investigation. Starr was a republican appointee and the left should demand, in all fairness, a democratic appointee.

To those neo-con apologists still defending this administration, when will you wise-up and act not only in your best interests but those of the country? To compare the actions of this administration with any other in history is as disengenuous as it is wrong-headed. Even your hero Reagan would've cut these guys loose by now.

To Sic Semper Morannis ... I suggest you stick to the point and quit obfuscating the arguement, a typical conservative debate tactic. When you can't win the debate on it's merits, you change the subject. You may well be justified in pointing out that Marc Rich was inexcusably pardoned by Clinton if you hold that ALL pardons are inexcusable. Then your standard can be applied because all are the same.

Most here don't seek to defend Clinton's pardons. Why? Because it's not germane to the debate. However, let's be clear on one thing, Marc Rich was not part of the Clinton Administration nor did he act on it's behalf at any point; a not insignificant distinction. Libby was part of this White House and as such, whether in word or deed, directly or indirectly, his actions were that of the Administration's. As Mr. Blumenthal accurately points out, Bush's pardon is self-serving as it grants clemency to someone who's conviction was based on actions he engaged in while employed by the White House.

You speak of hypocrisy. Let's be careful how we throw that term around ... you know the admonishment of glass houses and stones. Maybe we can use the word 'inconsistent' instead.

Bush famously said he'd "deal with anyone who leaked". I guess we should have asked him to be more precise. Perhaps he meant he'd CUT a deal with anyone who leaked rather than punish anyone who leaked. Shame on us for taking The Decider at his word. I guess pardon and commute are the same thing as 'deal' in his lexicon.

I think Chris Matthews summed it up best ...

“For him (Bush) to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”

The Decider's actions are yet another in a growing list of inconsistencies and falsehoods that hold his imperial presidency above the laws of this land. He has at least been consistent about his loyalty to his own and his disdain for accountability. Is this what he meant by restoring honor and dignity to the White House?