I think I'd be serving a lot more than three years in prison if I had blown a CIA agent's cover to the media, then committed perjury to try to hide the fact. This just shows we have two standards of justice in this country, one for wealthy Republicans, and one for the rest of us.

Sent by Eric Bullock | 2:22 PM ET | 07-03-2007

After hearing many rational, astute, legal and political analyses of Mr. Bush's pardon, I still find the commutation of Libby's sentence ethically repulsive. Mr. Bush and his supporters show their fundamental conception of American government to be monarchical and totally lacking any understanding of moral proportion and decency. Mr. Bush prtrays himself as a man of God, a reborn Christian pledged to Christ, who preached mercy. How many chances did he have to commute the death sentences of prisoners in Texas and show his sympathy for mere mortals not belonging to his circle of friends? The simple fact that I hear no one rightously angry about this commutation and his other crimes against the nation makes me wonder what happened to the courage of the American public. If it is afraid to speak out because of fear of retaliation from Mr. Bush and The Real President, Mr. Cheney, then it must truly have nothing worth saying or listening to. When the Democratic party stops participating in the Bush charade and starts discussing Bush and Cheney's impeachment, maybe we'll exercise our constitutional rights and teach them what true justice is.

Sent by Frank Lynam (pronounce "Line M") | 3:13 PM ET | 07-03-2007

It was all worked out from the beginning. Libby was the fall guy, and I'm sure was told upfront, "you take the fall and we will take care of you. Don't worry, we got your back". And that is exactly what happened. They and Libby knew all the time that whatever the findings were, he was either going to be commuted or pardoned. It was all setup up front. And as far as the $250,000 fine, believe me that money has also been taken care of by others,and not one dime will be paid by Libby. Duh!!

Sent by name withheld | 5:51 PM ET | 07-03-2007

While "Scooter" is a great nickname, I think we need to ammend this nicety. Maybe he can start going by L. "Hilton" Libby, or maybe Scooter "Paris" Libby. What happened? A few weeks ago, when the heiress got out of jail early, the media reported the "outrage" that was sweeping the nation, and discussions of the "justice" gap between rich and poor were underway before I had lunch.
I think this just goes to show (as if the Enron fiasco didn't prove it) that if you have the name and some money you can get away with almost anything. I'm just wondering when Americans are going to be as interested in politics as they are in "entertainment". Well, let me be the first to report that "America is outraged by this!" When someone is thrown under the bus to distract the masses from lynching the real culprit, and then it turns out to be a trick (surprised?) the entire country should be outraged. Oh, and if "Paris" has no respect for the law he should never be able to practice law again-- but I think we all know that "justice" is only for the poor.

Sent by Matthew Claypool | 6:14 PM ET | 07-03-2007

Get over it. Plame was outed years earlier by Aldrich Aimes and I bet the Clinton's were happier than hell with Scooter when he was Marc Rich's lawyer. Pardon me.

Sent by Steve Muir | 9:42 PM ET | 07-03-2007

Political?? Excuse me, the man was convicted of lying to a Grand Jury. I, or you, would be on my way to prison right now. An empaneled jury in his trial ruled that they did not believe--with all the varied witnesses that they heard--that Mr. Libby could credibly claim that he "didn't remember" or "didn't know." It matters not who else may or may not have leaked Valerie Plame's name--even if someone else did it first, that information was still classified. And it matters not that no one has been formally charged with that leak. Lying is lying, and perjury is an offense independent of any underlying crime. To claim, as people are doing, that this was a "non-crime" and that the sentence is unduly harsh, should live to find themselves in the docket under the same charges without Mr. Libby's resources and friends. The sentence was in line with previous sentences in the same circumstances, sentences upheld by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. If Libby had not been a buddy of this administration, he would have twisted slowly, slowly, in the wind.

Sent by Ellen Bush | 9:50 PM ET | 07-03-2007

(Libby's wife would not let her husband go down alone) As I see it, Mr. Bush has three choices. The first is the honorable one. Mr. Libby is guilty. Everyone knows it. He should be sent to prison just the same as you or I. Failure to do so would send the message that there are two systems of justice in America; one for the wealthy and the influential and the much harsher consequences that the rest of us may suffer. That is perfectly true, of course, but we don't need to be reminded of it so blatantly. As I stated, however, sending Scooter up the river, consequences be damned, is the honorable tact, so I think that we may dismiss it out-of-hand.
The second option would be more in keeping with the character of the men who have brought our country to the precipice where it teeters today. It is generally agreed that Mr. Libby took the fall for an even creepier denizen in our ongoing Washington horror show. (I hope you are aware of my clever tie-in with the reference to Transylvania above.) Ms. Plame's identity was leaked because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, dared to suggest that the case for attacking Iraq was fashioned out of very shaky information.
Vice President Cheney, perhaps sensing a threat to his imminent induction into a higher income bracket, thought that some sort of retaliation might be in order. Like the Gonzales/Ashcroft hospital thing, they got caught. Mr. Libby was provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to prove his mettle as a team player by taking the fall in Cheney's place or, at the very least, sustaining the laughable fiction that the vice president wouldn't be involved in such an underhanded scheme.
Once Libby is safely ensconced behind bars, his ability to express any tiresome change of heart would be severely compromised, so there certainly is some merit in Mr. Bush clucking his thick tongue in mock sympathy and then ignoring the whole mess entirely (and, let's face it, there's no shortage of messes if George W. Bush is involved). Neither Bush nor Cheney have ever displayed any particular loyalty to anything beyond their own tattered pennants. What is one more human sacrifice on the altar of megalomania?
The problem here is a significant one, however. Mrs. Libby has said publicly, in no uncertain terms, that if her husband is going down, he isn't going down alone. The question immediately arises as to whether Harriet Grant Libby has enough bait at her disposal to catch two slippery little weasels. I'm betting that neither Cheney nor Karl Rove particularly wants to risk the chance that she does.
That brings us to the third course of action: A pardon. In granting Libby a pardon, the White House will make every effort to paint him as a martyr to their grand cause, a modern day Joan of Arc being bound to the stake by political partisanship and set ablaze by subversives. What Lewis Libby is, however, is a convicted criminal, not so different from the thug who knocks over a convenience store, if you overlook the $800 suit. He did everything in his power to derail an inquiry into a serious breach involving the nation's intelligence network.
This privileged, magna cum laude, Yale educated corporate lawyer forfeited his honor to placate Dick Cheney's pique. There is nothing epic about Lewis Libby's disgrace and there should be no pity for his shame. Until this country comes to terms with men like Libby, with his prep school polish and his malleable scruples, we are always going to be at the mercy of men like Cheney.
Mr. Bush should not underestimate the justifiable outrage that the pardon will generate, but historically he guards against sleepless nights by not particularly caring what anyone else thinks. I'll bet that this labyrinthine quandary took The Decider about 20 seconds to ponder. But then the issue of a pardon has never really involved anything more fluid than one word ??? when.
Alden Graves is a Banner columnist and reviewer. from the bennington banner, alden graves, columnist

Sent by randal | 9:52 PM ET | 07-03-2007

It's an outrage! Also, as a taxpayer, I want my money back! What a waste of taxpayer dollars to try this case! To this administration, we, the people of America, are invisible. Except for when we are their ATM. Too bad, I haven't agreed with anything they have spent my money on--

Sent by Marilyn Howell | 10:01 PM ET | 07-03-2007

Valerie Plame was not outed by Aldrich Aimes. As matter of fact Mr. Gates and CIA director Hayden confirmed she wasn't because has been involved in (non-offiial cover) clandestine operations. In fact, before Valerie's testimony the CIA issued a statement, Ok'ed a statement by Valerie, and Ok'ed a statement by Henry Waxman. They say 3's a charm. Specifically, the CIA statement had, as a part of it's text it entered into the public record:

=====================

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.


This was classified information.


=====================

The CIA confirmed in public for the first time that Valerie Plame was undercover, was covert and that this information was classified.

Fitzgerald confirmed that she had travelled on missions within the 5 years before her outing.


Does the truth even matter anymore or do you conservatives just sing la, la, la, la, la.....I'm pretty, so pretty........

That goes for you too MEDIA. Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers, so please stop using the word ALLEDGEDLY

Sent by Morel Hughey | 11:33 AM ET | 07-04-2007

I find this commutation reprehensible. Its arrogance is stunning. Mr. Bush should be criticized by every Republican who believes in the Declaration and the Constitution. No one in America can have any faith in our system of justice when such favoritism occurs publicly at the highest levels.
I am saddened that our government is in such a state.

Sent by Pam Spooner | 12:39 PM ET | 07-04-2007

The president is naked. Again! But nobody is laughing.

Sent by Peter Almeida | 1:18 PM ET | 07-04-2007

This commutation (perhaps a pardon in 2008) of Libby's sentence is in poor ethical standing. However, it seems to me that it is one more line of evidence pointing towards the utter failure and corruption of our idealogical self-righteous administration. My opinion is, pick one! Which catastrophe of this administration will we choose to identify its failures, so that we (the American people first, politicians second) don't make them again. Indeed this singluar event does show the corruption of our system of justice, but this is not new (leaking the name of a CIA agent is quite severe though, and I beleive should carry a maximum punishment) previous presidents have pardoned criminals before. Finally, considering the other constiutional/ethical violations of this administration, it find it difficult to become more frustrated than I already am by this event. And it seems, judging by hearings of the various oversight comittees, that we will have to weather this storm until the end of the Bush administration (perhaps one of the brightest days we can look forward to).

Sent by E.L. Gulbranson | 6:00 PM ET | 07-04-2007

how many times do they have to......??aaarrgghhh
how many people have to be criticized as "unpatriotic"?.....
aaarrrggghhh
how many people who bring up impeachment will it take before the other people start agreeing that power has gone too far?
I am always sure this administration cannot completely trash the constitution anymore, but then I am disappointed yet again.

What has to happen before the republicans who have been defending them
stop thinking about party and start thinking about country?????

I think it is finally going to happen and alas, it is not.

When??

Sent by M Wilson | 11:31 PM ET | 07-04-2007

People complain that Scooter Libby was prosecuted for perjury after Fitzgerald already knew the source of the leak. Is it possible that he lied to Federal agents who were still investigating whether Armitage was the first to reveal Valerie Plame's name and the case was continuing at the time Libby lied? Second, the Obstruction of Justice charge is particularly relevant because Libby's lies came at a time, before the Pesidential election, when the truth about the run-up to the war may have influenced the outcome. In some ways, he not only obstructed justice, he stole our democratic right to make and informed vote, although he would not be the only one guilty of that.

Sent by Frank McSweeney | 9:10 AM ET | 07-08-2007

Mr. Bush's disregard for decency and the laws of the USA, should make all of us expecially vigilant and vet all candidates that ask for our vote.

Much had to be ignored to allow Mr. Bush to get through the various hurdles for office.

Sent by Edgar Gallardo | 10:09 PM ET | 07-08-2007

Why should anyone be surprised that Presiden Bush pardoned Libby five hours after the court decided to allow the Judges order to stand... And then pay the quarter million dollar fine admitting guilt. It didn,t surprise me.

Sent by John P. Lewis | 7:34 AM ET | 07-09-2007