Bush wishes USA Happy Fourth of July, torches Constitution

Politics can be an unpredictable circus in Washington, but it can also be highly predictable. Sadly, this administration is about as predictable as it gets. I find it a little ironic that as we celebrate the birth of our nation on Independence Day, that President Bush continues to take a torch to our Constitution. Happy Birthday, USA!

Even the most passive followers of Washington politics probably concluded that President Bush, Our National Embarrassment, was going to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby though - it was only a question of when. Of course, the White House isn't spinning it that way. It's a commutation of Libby's sentence, not a pardon - he still has two whole years probation and a $250,000 fine (which will no doubt be paid by Republican fat cats).

The timing of the announcement could not have been more deliberate, either. Well, I suppose Bush could have waited until the Fourth of July, or Christmas morning. Instead, he announced it as Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting the U.S. at President Bush Sr's Kennebunkport summer home. Once again, it's PR 101, which is also a bit too predictable; Bush thinks that most of us are too stupid to see through his amateurish PR diversions. Some of us are paying attention, Mr. President.

This is just the latest example of an administration that believes it's above the law, and considering the Democratic "response" to yesterday's announcement, it's virtually impossible to conclude otherwise.

Before I get to the Democratic response, a bit from Bush's statement about Libby's sentence commutation:

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Wow, that's pretty touching. I wonder - what about Valerie Plame's damage to her career? Or Joe Wilson's? Many people, especially Republicans, forget that this entire matter began when Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, was asked by this administration to serve his country by traveling to Africa to investigate trumped up claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase Uranium Yellowcake from Niger. It took Wilson about 15 minutes to conclude that the allegations were based on forged documents, which had more errors in them than a George Bush grammar test.

When Wilson returned to the U.S. and briefed the CIA and the administration on his findings, he was ignored. After all, this was an administration that had made up its collective mind, even before 9-11, that it was going to war with Iraq. Wilson's inconvenient findings weren't going to get in the way of the Bush War Machine that was already picking up speed.

When it became painfully evident to Wilson that his findings were being ignored, he went public with his findings in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, entitled What I Didn't Find In Africa. After taking readers through the process of his involvement in investigating Hussein's alleged purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and reasons why he thought these allegations were false, he wound up his piece with this:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March Meet the Press appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Well, Bush, Rove and Cheney weren't going to stand for that. So, they outed Wilson's wife, an undercover agent in the CIA, who had given over 20 years of her life to the agency. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they destroyed her career, AND, odds are, put people's lives in danger. Everyone Plame ever dealt with (including other agents) while undercover were compromised. Some people may have even died as a result of her cover being blown, but we'll never know; count that as yet another chapter to this sad story that the American public will never know the full truth about. There's a reason that exposing an covert agent is illegal - people's lives and careers are at stake. But, like so many other laws, this doesn't apply to Libby or this administration.

A quick sidebar - in the immediate aftermath of the scandal going public, Fox News and its bumbling cabal, led by Sean Hannity, desperately tried to portray Plame as a CIA agent who was NOT undercover. Arrrrrrnt. Wrong again, Sean. A CIA report revealed that she was covert at the time of Robert Novak's disgraceful column that started this whole scandal in the first place. Read about that Here.

Most curious of all were the responses from leading political figures in the aftermath of Bush's announcement.

Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority "Leader," had this to say:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.

Well, I'm sure glad that history will judge him harshly, because this Congress sure isn't going to do it. As if Congress has no power to do anything. Sure senator, let's just leave it up to history to weigh in against the president. Astonishing.

Of course, predictably, Republican presidential candidates were quick to give Bush kudos for his decision to let Libby off the hook.

Fred Thompson, who has emerged as a vocal advocate for Mr. Libby, said, "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." Hey Fred, just because you play a district attorney on TV doesn't make you an expert about this case. It's just absurd.

And, of course, America's Mayor, a former federal prosecutor, had to weigh in as well. Bush "came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," said Rudy Giuliani.

I wonder, if Libby was someone that Giuliani had prosecuted, how he would feel about the president's decision? Or if Libby were a Democrat, how Thompson would feel? Pretty amazing that Congress can impeach President Clinton for lying about a private, consensual (yet admittedly sleazy) affair with Monica Lewinsky, yet Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney will get away with outing a CIA agent's identity because her husband dared disagree with this war-mongering administration.

It also amusing to look back at then-candidate Bush's statements during the 2000 campaign about abiding by "the rule of law," a not-so-subtle jab at President Clinton.

So much for restoring "honor and integrity" to the Oval Office, Dubya.