Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd plan to lead the effort to deauthorize this war. They write in an op-ed:

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle.

At a recent Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: "I don't know." Four years into the conflict in Iraq, longer than American involvement in World War II, after years of White House misjudgment and miscalculation, as our troops fight and die in the midst of an Iraqi civil war, the answer could not be clearer.

The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that. We intend to lead that effort.

Excellent points. Clearly, the surge is not working. Basra is increasingly becoming a lost cause. Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops on Iraq's northern border and threatens to invade. The car bomb this past Saturday, one of the deadliest yet (over 150 killed). A no-confidence vote looms over Iraq's PM. Iraqi civilians are called upon to take up arms. Defense Secretary Gates is proposing a deal to withdraw troops. Republican support is fast dropping off. Oh, and it will soon be reported that Iraq has met none of its benchmarks.

Yet, the likes of Sen. Lieberman will say otherwise, with a straight face. Don't we have more than enough denial emanating from the White House?

A Senate panel successfully voted to strip Cheney's office of its funding. Sweet justice. However, knowing this VP, he'd continue to work hard at ruining this country even with his desk parked out on the curb.

It's summertime and that can only mean one thing: time for Republican fear-mongering to escalate.

Here's a partial list of recent warnings without an ounce of proof:

Rick Santorum

Homeland Security chief Chertoff (based on "gut feel")

U.S. ambassador Crocker

Bush

What our soldiers are fighting for:

ANDERSON COOPER (CNN): Some of the benchmarks the Iraqi government was supposed to meet -- we're talking about revising the constitution to encourage more Sunni political participation, guaranteeing all groups a share of oil revenue, lessening restrictions on Baath Party members, local elections -- none of these have been met, according to this new Pentagon report, according to the A.P. Why not?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Because, to be honest, it's not really in the interests of the main power players here in Iraq to meet them.

These are American agendas, American benchmarks. These aren't the benchmarks that the factions within the Iraqi government really care about. What they care about is getting their hands on their own security forces and setting them loose as they see fit.

And, don't forget, a lot of these benchmarks strike at the deepest, most heartfelt divisions politically and in terms of the sectarian divide that exist in this country. None of them are easy fixes. And in none of them is it really in the interests of those who hold power to meet them. They just want to keep their power -- Anderson.

COOPER: So, essentially, you're saying they don't see themselves as part of a larger Iraq. They don't see themselves as a ruling of -- all the people of Iraq, as we think about a democracy. They still see themselves as factions, and they are trying to hold on to turf and power.

WARE: Yes, absolutely. I mean, the concept of a national unity government, as the Bush administration calls this thing that they describe as the Iraqi government, is laughed at, even by some of the senior members of this government itself. (bold added)

A Bush/Cheney fantasy, that being a unified, democratic Iraq, a concept that Iraqis themselves laugh at. Enough already.

After years of presiding over a steadily worsening situation in Iraq, instead of proactively devising an alternative Plan B, we come to learn this administration has got nothing, as if they've been twiddling their thumbs this entire time. Worse yet, we also learn they're running around in "panic mode" -- how comforting.

This is supporting our troops?

With regards to next year's presidential race, I wish to reiterate what I refer to as "the pretzel dilemma" (GOP candidates forced to twist and turn only to do so once again before November 2008 = too much twisting = break). The extreme views of the GOP has put in place near-certain failure for the party's presidential contenders. By forcing them to adopt and parrot positions so far to the right of mainstream America, when it comes time to appeal to the middle in order to win the White House, the Republican candidate will have said so much to appease the far right he will not be able to credibly erase or alter those extreme statements, thus alienating a good portion of the electorate.

If Republicans believe George McGovern and Walter Mondale represented extremes to the left for the Democratic Party, then they better realize their party has drifted even further to the right in extreme and they should not be surprised come next November when they experience the equivalent in anemic vote totals.

Colin Powell continues attempts to reestablish his reputation (something Tony Blair will soon have to start doing).

Powell now says that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq: “I tried to avoid this war. I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Insofar as one can bemoan this confession as seemingly CYA in light of a monstrous policy failure, to be fair to Powell it's easily believable to think that he could've spent five hours trying to dissuade Bush from invading only for it to be in vain. It's been plainly evident that Bush will do what he wants, facts and reason be damned.

A disturbing item in the NY Times:

They described Mr. Hadley as deeply concerned that the loss of Republicans could accelerate this week, a fear shared by Mr. Rove. But they also said that Mr. Rove had warned that if Mr. Bush went too far in announcing a redeployment, the result could include a further cascade of defections — and the passage of legislation that would force a withdrawal by a specific date, a step Mr. Bush has always said he would oppose.

Question: should non-military-expert Karl Rove be influencing if not establishing military policy? In this case, he advises minimizing redeployment so as to avoid the possibility of legislation the president has opposed. Once again, politics dictates policy. Meanwhile our soldiers fight on, sacrificing their limbs and lives.

It's especially disturbing since Rove recently stated in Aspen, Colorado that al-Qaida was responsible for "80 to 90 percent of the bombs that are killing U.S. soldiers" in Iraq. However, a much more astute expert on the military, Colin Powell, responded the figure was closer to 10%. The point being, Rove knows not what he's talking about and yet he apparently has much to say about our policy in Iraq. Likely explains more of the failure.

In March, I wrote about how independents were increasingly correlating with positions favored by Dems, something that obviously spelled doom for the GOP in 2008. In most elections, the key is to win over the swing voters and independents comprise a good portion of these prized votes.

The American Research Group recently surveyed adults about Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence. Of those who approved of the decision: 13% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans, and 19% of Independents. Concerning the question of favoring or opposing an eventual pardon of Libby, in favor of a pardon were 7% of Democrats, 23% of Republicans, and 2% of Independents.

Notice how Independents continue to align much more so with Democrats than Republicans. The GOP presidential contenders have much to worry about, especially since they are stumbling over each other to please the far right faction of their party. Granted, they must suck up to the fringe to nail down the nomination, but good luck in making up all that ground to get back to the middle in time for November 2008 -- and to do so with at least some credibility.

Where Is The Common American's Outrage?

To get elected in 2000, Bush adeptly hid his Ivy League/affluent roots and instead played up a good-old-boy/Texan image to win over the average American. It was all a farce but it worked (thanks also to Florida and the Supreme Court).

But where are these same "average" citizens to protest this Libby commutation? Surely with this decision (never mind the hundreds of others he's made since 2000), Bush has made starkly evident his true colors, that he's all about serving the rich and protecting the well-connected. He cares not a bit about the typical American. Some proof? When governor of Texas, Bush rarely if ever granted clemency or leniency. Many such average Americans were allowed to die via the death penalty or face long sentences as decreed by the law, all because those particular guilty individuals were nobodies to Bush. The only concern he's ever had with regard to average Americans is to win their votes, anyway, anyhow, whether it be by hoodwinking or outright lying.

If after six years these same fools have not awoken to the fact that they've been manipulated this entire time, then this Libby commutation should finally do the sobering deed. Otherwise we're left with only one conclusion: the average American is utterly butt-stupid and this country is doomed.

It didn't take long for the wingnuts and the administration to resort to bashing Bill Clinton as a means to deflect from the Libby decision. Bush has offered no details as to why he chose to free a guilty man who was obstructing justice in a national security case that led back to the White House. The very weak the-sentence-was-"too harsh" excuse just doesn't cut it and has been explained away not just by Fitzgerald but by anyone who cares to dig a little to discover that the 30 month ruling was completely fair.

Dan Froomkin wrote:

Rather than address the most weighty criticism of President Bush's decision to commute former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby's prison sentence -- that it was part and parcel of a longtime cover-up of White House misdeeds -- press secretary Tony Snow lashed out at former President Bill Clinton and his would-be president wife for actions that date back more than six years.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been among the foremost critics accusing Bush of commuting Libby's sentence in order to avoid further inquiry into his own behavior. The commutation "was clearly an effort to protect the White House," she told the Associated Press earlier this week. "There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."
<..>
It's certainly hard to argue that President Clinton didn't abuse the pardon process. But Bush's pledge back in 2000 was to restore ethics to the White House -- not engage in he-did-it-too defense of his own misconduct.

And furthermore, there is an ethical chasm between Clinton's pardons -- unseemly as they were -- and Bush's decision to grant clemency to someone involved in an investigation of his own White House.

As it happens, the previous granting of clemency that is most analogous to what Bush did dates back neither to the Clinton or even the Nixon era, but to Bush's father's presidency.

In 1992, on the eve of his last Christmas in the White House, George H.W. Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair, in which he himself was also loosely implicated.

As David Johnston reported in the New York Times at the time, independent prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh was livid. "Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that 'the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.'"

Added Walsh: "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations."

Like father, like son. Oh, and it's worth repeating that Bush spent much of his 2000 campaign making the case that Bill Clinton was scum and Bush would return glistening ethics and respect for the law to Washington, and now the best the right-wingers can do is compare their man Bush to the guy he was supposed to tower above ethically -- truly pathetic. It went from Bush will put the ethical lapses of Clinton behind us to now whining about how Clinton did it too. Only in his two terms Bush has managed to make Clinton (and Nixon for that matter) look saintly.

Also, Keith Olbermann rattled off at least four reasons why Clinton's pardons differ from Bush's decision to free Libby:

Unlike Bush, Clinton was "consistently generous with clemency rather than reserving it exclusively for friends."

Clinton typically waited until after sentences were served.

Clinton did not use it to obtain cover in ongoing investigations.

Regarding Marc Rich, some prominent Republicans argued Rich was innocent and deserved the pardon, including one Scooter Libby, Rich's lawyer at the time.

Finally, Paul Krugman wrote:

Back when the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity began, Mr. Bush insisted that if anyone in his administration had violated the law, “that person will be taken care of.” Now we know what he meant. Mr. Bush hasn’t challenged the verdict in the Libby case, and other people convicted of similar offenses have spent substantial periods of time in prison. But Mr. Libby goes free.
<..>
Mr. Bush says that Mr. Libby’s punishment remains “harsh” because his reputation is “forever damaged.” Meanwhile, Mr. Bush employs, as a deputy national security adviser, none other than Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Abrams was one of six Iran-contra defendants pardoned by Mr. Bush’s father, who was himself a subject of the special prosecutor’s investigation of the scandal.

In other words, obstruction of justice when it gets too close to home is a family tradition.

It's what they do, and GW has learned quite well from daddy Bush. Thanks to this craven cabal, Washington has never been more of a sewer.

One could easily make the case that the past six years have been some trying times, given 9/11, terrorism, Iraq, etc. One would then also think that during such a time we'd have a president who was engaged and diligently hard at work.

Think again. Between Camp David and his Texas ranch, Bush has spent all or part of 805 days at either one. Considering Bush has resided in the White House for 2360 days, we are talking about a president who has vacationed for more than 1/3 of his time in office! Do you get 17 weeks of vacation time per year?

Then again, imagine how much worse of we'd be if this mental giant were in fact burning the midnight oil, attempting to come up with new ways to sink us into a deeper hole.

In the past, I've commented on the columns of David Brooks, in nearly each case concluding that Brooks is a moron. As with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the gang, they are so ridiculously idiotic that to spend time writing about them is all too often a simple waste of time, thus reason why I nary write about Brooks. His columns are typically nonsensical and sophomoric.

That said his latest entry concerning the Libby commutation is, as Andrew Sullivan tagged it, an embarrassment. David Corn goes one step further and offers an almost line-by-line refutation of Brooks' column.

What's truly embarrassing is the NY Times continues to employ this guy. Can't they find anyone better to portray the right-wingers?

And even more about the Libby-eventual-pardon travesty.

From the Raleigh News & Observer: "Well, now we know what 'compassionate conservatism' means. It means that if you're Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, and you're convicted of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury, you don't have to go to prison -- even when many others have for similar offenses."

From the LA Times:

[R]ecords show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.

Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The veteran had a record of public service — fighting in Vietnam and the Gulf War — and no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines.

That Bush chose to make an exception for a political ally is galling to many career Justice Department prosecutors and other legal experts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.
<..>
Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

With his commutation, Bush has further weakened our legal system. Expect future "Libby exceptions" and pleas in courts across the country. And as for the last paragraph referring to "without recent precedent," what we have is a singularly horrible president making singularly unprecedented decisions. What don't people get? Bush's actions are always wrong, but at this point far from surprising.

The St.Louis Post-Dispatch wrote:

Anyone who is surprised that President George W. Bush commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence hasn't been paying enough attention to the way this administration does business:

It wages a pre-emptive war in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It ignores the judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and wiretaps citizens without warrants. It holds prisoners for years without charges or trial, and uses secret prisons overseas where prisoners are tortured in everything but name. It nominates its own unqualified lawyer to the Supreme Court and fires career prosecutors to make room for its own stooges. It ravages the environment and calls it the Healthy Forests Act and Clear Skies Initiative. It walks away from international arms treaties and even claims the vice president isn't part of the executive branch.

Surely giving Libby a get-of-jail-free card is no big deal.

Finally, and this is the kicker, in his book, "A Charge To Keep," Bush stated, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," he said referring to why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

Do *%^$#* hypocritical a-holes come any bigger?

On this Fourth of July, my head is still spinning from reading all of the commentary on Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence.

The always-astute Dick Polman summed things up nicely:

A show of hands: How many of you are surprised that President Bush has put his thumb on the scales of justice and decreed that a convicted perjurer in a national security case, a felon who was enmeshed in a White House campaign of deception to discredit a critic of the Iraq war, is somehow less deserving of jail time than Paris Hilton?

No, it’s hardly a surprise that the same guy who once promised to “restore honesty and integrity to the White House,” the same president who had previously denied more than 4000 commutation requests, has now opted to grant Scooter Libby his very own Independence Day.
<..>
[J]ust 12 days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that makes it tougher for convicted felons to reduce their jail time (the high court upheld the 33-month sentence of Victor Rita, who had been convicted of making false statements in a weapons investigation; Rita, like Libby, had been punished in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines).

None of those little details matter a whit to those Republicans who are cheering Bush this morning (the same Republicans who, during the Bill Clinton era, routinely invoked the primacy of “the rule of law”).

That recent Supreme Court ruling cracking down on convicted felons and the Republicans cheering this decision vs. their jeers for Bill Clinton years ago -- these guys are always good for irony and outrageous hypocrisy.

Dan Froomkin poses several good questions:

Bush's decision yesterday to commute Libby's prison sentence isn't just a matter of unequal justice. It is also a potentially self-serving and corrupt act.

Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald?
<..>
It's true that the Constitution grants the president unlimited clemency and pardon power. But presidents have generally used that power to show mercy or, in rare cases, make political amends -- not to protect themselves from exposure.

Argue with Bill Clinton's pardons all you want, none were granted to someone within his administration who had the potential to implicate him in a crime if only he/she told the truth. In this respect, Marc Rich is a far cry from Libby.

More questions from Froomkin:

* Does the president approve of Libby's conduct?

* On whose behalf did Libby act?

* Did the White House make any sort of a deal with Libby or his defense team?

* What did Bush know and when did he know it?

* When did he find out that Karl Rove and Libby had both leaked Plame's identity? Before or after he vowed that any leakers would be fired? Did anyone lie to him about their role? Why didn't he fire them?

* How does the conduct of his aides comport with Bush's vow to restore ethics to the White House? How does the commutation?

* What factors did the president take into account in deciding to commute the sentence?

* What does the president consider an appropriate punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice?

* What was Cheney's role in the commutation?

Want to further compare the Clinton/Rich pardon with this eventual-pardon? Where appropriate, replace Libby's name above with Rich. See, no comparison.

Froomkin makes another good point concerning Bush's decision to commute instead of pardon: "For Bush to state he believed Libby to be innocent would at least have been defensible. Instead, what Bush is saying is that acknowledges the guilty verdict -- but, when it comes to his friends and colleagues, he just doesn't care what the justice system concluded was a fitting punishment."

So instead of having the guts to proclaim Libby innocent with a pardon, GW attempts a sleazy middle-ground move by agreeing with the jury's verdict (i.e. Libby is a 100% guilty man), but then decides to free him anyway because he's a close friend who saved his and Cheney's ass.

But if Bush felt the sentence was unreasonable, why didn't he just lessen it? Instead of 30 months in jail, why not 20 or even 10? (This from a guy who never, ever displayed anything close to such compassion while governor of Texas). Nope, Bush decided this guilty person deserved zero days in jail. As many have been saying, Paris Hilton served more prison time than Libby (and unlike Libby she also expressed remorse, a necessary condition for commutations/pardons).

Prosecutor Fitzgerald offered this statement in response to Bush's questioning the 30 months:

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as 'excessive.' The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws.

It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

In other words, Bush's stated reason for the commutation -- that the sentence was too harsh -- is complete bullshit.

It was also well-reported that Bush did not consult with lawyers at the Justice Department nor did he consult with the lead prosecutor (Fitzgerald) in the case, both routine procedures for commutations or pardons (yet Snow claims the steps taken were "routine"). But then again, when commuting a guilty friend out of sheer loyalty, Bush likely felt consulting with lawyers would be a waste of time. Why bother? For Bush, this matter has very little to do with laws or anything legal and everything to do with dodging accountability and covering up unlawful involvement.

Josh Marshall wrote:

The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.

The president's power to pardon is full and unchecked, one of the few such powers given the president in the constitution. Yet here the president has used it to further obstruct justice. In a sense, perhaps we should thank the president for bringing the matter full circle. Began with criminality, ends with it.

Again, compare vs. Clinton's pardons. Bush's commutation prevents Libby from having to tell the truth about Bush/Cheney's involvement in the Plame leak. It's what the mafia does: commit wrongs in an effort to cover-up their prior committed wrongs, forming an endless domino-line of criminal offenses. Libby did it by lying, and then Bush did it by commuting him.

Interestingly, both John Dean and Jonathan Turley stated last night on Olbermann's Countdown that either Fitzgerald or congress could immunize Libby and force him to testify (again) about Bush and Cheney's involvement. Pressure should mount for this to happen. Perhaps justice still has a fighting chance of being achieved.

This commutation is the penultimate betrayal capping Bush's now-infamous 2000 campaign promise to return ethics to Washington. The presidency has not sunk this low in the craven, scum swamp in decades. Nixon is looking a bit saintly in comparison.

Wingnut blogger Glenn Reynolds wrote, "My prediction: Bush will rise in the polls as estranged conservatives warm to him in light of lefty indignation."

Oh, so free a thoroughly guilty man, one found guilty by "overwhelming" evidence by a Republican-appointed judge, and then unanimously confirmed by three other justices (two appointed by Republicans), and in the end conservatives will applaud the decision for no other reason than it's a win for their side. Partisan score-keeping trumps the rule of law. Perhaps the only saving grace? Never again will these hypocritical creeps be able to pull a Bill-Clinton-impeachment-like charade.

Finally, Sheryl Stolberg wrote in the NY Times, "President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man — a leader who knows that, with 18 months left in the Oval Office and only a dwindling band of conservatives still behind him, he might as well do what he wants."

I've written before about this frightening fact with detached Bush who "has much time left in office, a woefully awful president who listens to no one, realizes his legacy is shit, and yet still must confront many serious problems facing this country -- well, he's very capable of doing some go-for-broke things that could really be huge whoppers, even by his standards." Yes, a president as off his rocker as this one and who feels "liberated" enough to "do what he wants" is a hair-raising combination. Scary to think what he'll feel like doing next, just for the hell of it.

More proof Republicans will be increasing pressure on Bush regarding Iraq well before this September:

After the Fourth of July recess, “you'll be hearing a number of statements from other (Republican) colleagues,” predicted Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a longtime skeptic of the war strategy.

Perhaps that's why Gates is preemptively looking to cut a deal, withdrawal of most troops in exchange for a long-term presence there ala South Korea. But the fact remains the Republicans are helping to do some of the heavy lifting for the Democrats -- not out of goodwill but rather fear that they'll be voted out of office next year.

While it may seem that the whole idea of impeaching Bush or Cheney is still a bit far-fetched, Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran analyst for the CIA, makes a serious, convincing case.

Apparently mouthpiece for the GOP, Sean Hannity, has left the party and become an independent.

As I've written countless times before, it's difficult to recall when the Republican Party was as far to the right as it has been during the Bush/Cheney era. Yet I guess for many zealots in the party, the dramatic rightward shift still comes up short.

Hannity is not the only extreme believer with harsh words for his once beloved party and with any luck this trend will continue, splintering a lame-duck party that has long grown diseased, corrupt and bereft of any competence. With it, power will dissipate and many politicians will do anything but be associated with such a shameful organization. Quite a far cry from Karl Rove's dream for a permanent Republican majority in DC.

"Rule Of Law" My Ass!

With Bush commuting Libby's sentence, shouldn't we expect an outcry from the same crowd who was looking to lynch Bill Clinton for lying about blowjobs....? Recall the constant refrain "rule of law" as well as "what will the children think"? Well, what does Bush's action towards Libby say about this administration's respect for the law, and what does it say to our children? Kids, crime pays if you have very influential friends to cover for you.

This news is not shocking in the least, and in fact I wrote on June 10th that Bush would not pardon Libby but rather commute the sentence. What does this dead-duck president have to lose, with his polls numbers so low that at this point they reflect only the most extreme far right kooks in the nation -- exactly the minority Bush is playing to these days. Not that he was ever trying to appeal to the more moderate citizens of this country, but these days his partisan leanings are just so nakedly obvious.

Stories in the press remind us Libby is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra scandal -- another debacle occurring under a Republican president. Oh, and if memory serves, there were loads of pardons and commutations to follow that affair.

Also as a reminder, Judge Walton, who ruled that evidence of guilt against Libby was "overwhelming," was a Bush appointee, and the two of the three judges on the appeals court that ruled Libby should go straight to jail were Republican appointees. Yet, Bush and the far right still felt these judges were wrong, with Bush concerned that they damaged Libby's reputation forever. Poor, poor Libby, the world is against him, he had nothing to do with his actions, our system of laws only seems to work when not against Republicans.

I'll remind what Dick Polman wrote a few weeks ago:

So here’s the Republican bible on selective morality: If a high official of a Republican administration lies under oath and obstructs justice in order to impede a national security investigation, and to prevent a prosecutor from even determining whether an “underlying crime” had been committed,” that’s perfectly fine. But if a Democratic president lies under oath to impede a sex investigation (even when there was no underlying crime, since the sex with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, no illegal), those are sufficient grounds for throwing the president out of office – because, after all, perjury for any reason is not only wrong, it is also a violation of “the rule of law.”

Lastly, Tim Dickinson writes:

[L]ook at the actual order Bush signed and it calls the presidential quasi-pardon by its real name: Clemency.

Clemency is an emotive word. It appeals to our sense of mercy. Clemency is something we should give to the Georgia teenager whose girlfriend gave him head at a party and now is in prison for aggravated child molestation. It’s reserved for those instances where following the letter of the law creates a greater injustice than the crime.

Scooter covered up illicit actions at the highest levels of our government. Libby lied. Intentionally. To the F-B-fucking-I.

If you or I did that we’d be flirting with Gitmo.

This cabal is and has always been above the law. They answer to no one and serve only themselves.

Interesting comments by George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley last Wednesday on Olbermann's Countdown.

Regarding Bush's stonewalling and refusal to cooperate with Congress, Turley states:

I mean, they could do a sort of Tai Chi of litigation and just move incredibly slowly. This president doesn‘t have long to go.

But there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was clearly criminal act that the president called for, that under federal law, it‘s a federal crime to do what the president ordered hundreds of people to do.

Now, if we‘re right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense. Now, both sides, both Democrats, Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don‘t want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, We‘re investigating a potential crime. And if they do it here, that crime was ordered by no one other than George Bush.

Yes, conceivably Bush has ordered hundreds of federal crimes, yet not a peep from the "rule of law" crowd.

Concerning Cheney's ludicrous attempt to define his office as neither part of the executive or legislative branch, Turley said:

The position adopted by Mr. Addington and Mr. Cheney, to put it bluntly, was absurd. I mean, it was—I had—it was completely frivolous.

And what really is striking about this is the lack of coherence and control within the administration. The vice president‘s office is a true center of gravity unto itself. I mean, in past administrations, if someone like Mr. Addington made such a moronic argument as this one, they would be out of a job the next week. I mean, he started this huge controversy. Everyone that of any credibility said that it was a ridiculous argument.

And now they‘re trying to backpedal and say, Well, we‘re going to go with a different argument.

I think that what it really shows is the lack of sort of adult supervision within the administration of somebody to come up with a coherent and single position for the president.

In part, the absence of "adult supervision" over Bush is what Peter Baker wrote about yesterday in the Washington Post, with one senior House Republican quoted as saying, "There's nobody there who can stand up to him and tell him, 'Mr. President, you've got to do this. You're wrong on this.' There's no adult supervision. It's like he's oblivious."

Often times, the road to reason with a man as detached and nonsensical as this one is through his spouse. Has anyone appealed to Laura to speak frankly with him? I'm not saying she would or could work miracles but at this point, when most friends would be exasperated and willing to try any intervention option, all means to effect change are on the table.

However, with this guy in office, there's little chance for beneficial change. As Dan Froomkin wrote yesterday:

[T]o me, it sounds like Bush is looking not for answers -- but for rationalizations for his behavior. There is no sign of genuine introspection, no sign of acknowledgment of mistakes, no sign of any significant change of course. In a pattern familiar to anyone who has ever had a drinking problem, Bush appears to be engaged in a furious effort to persuade onlookers that he's fine -- even if he isn't.

At best, one could hope that many years from now GW will lament about his abysmal reign, finally realizing how wrong he was about everything and asking aloud "what was I thinking?" But alas, that's not likely to happen given Bush's massive ego and self-delusion, and worse yet it wouldn't matter since the U.S. will have already suffered terribly under his rule.

This country has enjoyed many highs (too numerous to mention) and some lows (Great Depression, slavery, McCarthy, Watergate, to name a few). In the latter group, we can now add GW's two terms in office. As with the other dark holes in our past, may we eventually recover from this one.