One of these things ...

... is not like the other.

The Bush administration is attempting to divert attention from it's egregious commutation of Scooter's sentence by screaming as loudly as it can "hey, Clinton did it too", a claim which, of course, has at least two problems with it:

1. Even if the Clinton administration had done the exact same thing, two wrongs don't make a right as the saying go. One is tempted to ask Tony Snow, or whatever administration mouthpiece is available, "Well, if Clinton had jumped off a roof would President Bush do the same?".

2. Clinton did not actually "do it too".

Now, it's indisputable Clinton issued a number of pardons, including a large set as he was leaving office. There really isn't anything unusual about this, as prior out-going Presidents have done the same thing. The vast majority of these pardons are largely symbolic, being issued for deceased individuals. For those not yet deceased, the vast majority have served their time and the primary practical effect of the pardon is to restore the individuals' voting rights.

I am not aware of any Clinton pardon which rewarded a Clinton administration official for stonewalling an investigation into the Clinton administration. Not to put it too bluntly, that's almost a textbook description of "corruption", and it's what the Bush administration just engaged in.

Among Clinton's pardons, perhaps the case which most closely parallels Scooter's (closest I could find anyway) was that of Susan McDougal, who was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to answer questions concerning Whitewater in front of Kenneth Starr's grand jury panel, and who Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. However, prior to being pardoned McDougal had served her entire 18-month sentence. The pardon did not save her a single day of incarceration.

Scooter, needless to say, won't spend a single day inside a jail cell. He is not out a penny of the $250,000 fine he just paid, that will come from the same donors who contributed over $5 million to his defense fund. He won't suffer for being unable to practice law, as he will easily command $25,000 or more per appearance on the speaking circuit for some time, and after can find a safe home in some right-wing think tank, waiting out time until President Bush can pardon him on Bush's last day in office.

No, Scooter won't suffer. Scooter knows that, the President knows that and, most importantly, every other member (and former member) of the current administration also knows that.

Why would any current or former member of the administration hesitate to perjure themselves or, at least, refuse to answer questions, even in the face of contempt charges, after it has just been clearly demonstrated that, ultimately, they will suffer no serious consequences for their actions? The clear implication is "good soldiers" will "be taken care of", and far better than our actual soldiers are once they return home.

In providing amnesty for Scooter, El Jefe said he did it because the sentence was "excessive". as has been well documented, there was nothing at all excessive about Scooter's sentence. Even some conservatives admit the only thing extraordinary about the case was not the degree of punishment but, rather, who was involved.

Only the course of events will let us know if the message Bush sent to future witnesses will turn out to be the most "extraordinary" part of the entire affair.

Right on cue

As I predicted yesterday (along with lots and lots of other people, I know), the right-wing pundits are already up in arms over the Libby sentencing.

William Kristol, founder and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard has a piece up wondering why Bush hasn't pardoned Libby yet:

"So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

I can answer that question: No. Although it's hard to believe the President's failure to pardon an individual found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing perjury when testifying about a federal crime is really the reason one should have lost said respect. I mean, the illegal wiretapping wasn't enough for you? The removal of habeas corpus rights didn't do it? The rendition? The torture? The Iraq war failures? Really? This is the final straw in regards to losing respect for the President?

The National Review, another conservative mouthpiece, has an editorial up advocating a Libby pardon. My personal favorite is:

"There has always been solid justification for a pardon. Although he tried mightily, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never found enough evidence to charge Libby or anyone else with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act in the CIA-leak affair."

Well, duh. That was the reason the perjury case was brought against Libby in the first place -- the prosecutor felt, in no uncertain terms, his criminal investigation was blocked by Libby's repeated refusals to tell the truth regarding the affair. A jury deliberated carefully and agreed. That's why Libby faces 30 months in prison.

Little Green Footballs supports a pardon, as does potential GOP Presidential candidate Fred Thompson favors a pardon (hey, he can make that a central element of his campaign -- "Elect me, and I'll free Scooter!", there's a rallying cry), and so on.

Let's be clear - perjury is serious. If individuals are given license to freely lie under oath, our entire system of law falls apart. Conservatives felt it was serious enough to impeach a sitting president when he perjured himself about a personal sexual affair. Libby's perjury involved naming a covert CIA agent, endangering her and who knows how many agency assets she may have had contact with. Since it's one of "their own" (I.e., wealthy, educated, white, male, and , most importantly of all, conservative) apparently the rules shouldn't apply.

Addendum: Not surprisingly, lots of people are blogging about this subject. Anonymous Liberal has a quite lengthy post here about the matter, in particular decimating the National Review piece point-by-point. It's well worth a read.

This and That

1) Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) has passed away following a battle with leukemia. He was 74. My sincere condolences to his family.

2) "Scooter" Libby has just been handed a 30-month sentence for committing perjury in regards to the Valerie Plame affair. The defense has been arguing for probation while federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asking for 30-37 months. Clearly, Judge Reggie Walton sided with the prosecution in this matter. My guess is we'll see all those "rule of law" advocates on Fox talk shows screaming bloody murder about the length of the sentence -- remember, "rule of law" isn't supposed to apply to elite, Caucasian, Christian, conservative males. Just to the "little people".

Judge Walton scheduled another hearing next Thursday to address the issue of whether or not Libby can remain free on bail while appealing the decision. Typically this is not allowed in Federal cases, but this isn't a typical Federal case either. Should Libby be allowed to remain out on bail, it's extremely unlikely he would serve any actual jail time -- by the time the appeals had tun out, President Bush would be ending her term of office and would be likely to provide a pardon for his perjuring pal.

3) I know it may not be very "liberal" of me, but I don't have a real problem with the "point" system as proposed for potential immigrants.

The main objection seems to be the (lack of) weight provided for potential immigrants who have family members who are already US citizens. As things stand, out of a maximum 100 points, having a family member who is a US citizen is worth 10. Far more points are available for education, or for possessing needed job skills.

A number of people, especially Hispanics, are up in arms, and phrases like "separating families" are getting thrown about. This claim would make sense to me if there weren't provisions to extend citizenship to spouses and minor children of individuals who gain US citizenship. Frankly, we should be providing significantly more weight to, say, a candidate with a Masters degree in mechanical engineering rather than, say, a candidate who has a junior high education and no necessary job skills, but who's Uncle already happens to be a citizen.

4) A New York Times article this morning mentions the discovery of chicken bones discovered along the Pacific coast of South America that predate the arrival of Europeans. This is significant because chickens are not native to the Americas, and it had been previously thought chickens were likely not introduced prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's.

A minority had argued chickens were instead introduced to the New World by earlier Polynesian travelers, and this new finding strongly bolsters that view. The bones (and some associated pottery shards) date between 1304 and 1424.

It had been known since Thor Heyerdahl navigated the Kon Tiki from South America to Polynesia in 1947 that trans-Pacific journeys between the two cultures were at least theoretically possible, but apparently this is the first firm archaeological evidence for contact between them.