For the last few days, friends have been asking me what I think of the Libby pardon, and then sort of stepping back, wary but with looks amused anticipation on their faces, waiting for me to erupt in incensed indignation.<\/p>\n
And they are invariably disappointed when I instead shrug and say, “I don’t see how Libby going to jail matters, one way or the other.”<\/p>\n
Look people, here’s the deal. Libby is (or, rather, was) nothing more than one tentacle of the Cephalopod we know and loathe as Dick Cheney. Everything the guy did–from leaking Plame’s name to furiously trying to cover it up–was done either at the behest or to cover the ass of his Dark Master. To get all flushed and giddy of the prospect of Libby going to the pokey, while Cheney not only remains free but continue to pretty much run this joint, strikes me as the equivalent of throwing a single Sprite can into your recycling bin and declaring victory over global warming.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Bush’s pardon of Libby has a bunch of positive side-effects:<\/p>\n
It further illustrates the stunning contempt this administration has for the rule of law.<\/b> For those of us who have been paying attention, providing more evidence that this administration essentially considers itself unfettered by the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches is like carrying coals to Newcastle. But Libby’s pardon neatly encapsulates their monarchical arrogance into a single, easy-to-understand event, concise enough for a headline or a CNN crawler. No more trying to explain the intricacies of the US Attorney scandal and how it subtlety demonstrates the White House’s disregard for accountability; now you just say “Libby’s pardon” and people know exactly what you are talking about.<\/p>\n
It negates the “Clinton factor.”<\/b> Apologists for the White House love to talk about Bill Clinton, and how much worse he was than the current occupant of the oval office. Or, at least, they used to–before Bush managed to equal and surpass pretty much every wrongheaded decision and politically-motivated maneuver Slick Willy ever attempted in his eight years of office. Pretty much the only thing Clintonphobes could still cite as unambiguously worse about the previous administration was the use of pardons, thanks to Marc Rich’s Get Out Of Jail Free card. Now they don’t even have that anymore. (And, fun fact: after the Rich pardon, Clinton wrote an op-ed for the New York Times<\/a> attempting to justify his decision; Bush, on the other hand, couldn’t even be bother do to his own clean-up, instead letting Tony Snow do the ‘splainin’<\/a>. An op-ed, by the way, in which Snow mentions Clinton’s name as many times as he does that of his boss.)<\/p>\n It keeps the Plame scandal alive<\/b>: You put a scapegoat in jail, and that’s pretty much the end of the story. Once Ken Lay was convicted, talk of his connections to the White House largely stopped. That’s a little thing called “closure,” and something–thanks to Bush’s decision–we do not yet have on the Plame Affair.<\/p>\n It draws attention to the absurdity of mandatory minimum sentencing requirements<\/b>: People are outraged about the Libby pardon because Bush presumed to substitute his own judgment for that of the judge and jury. But the federal government does this all the time, with mandatory minimum sentencing laws. As recently as last month<\/a>, Bush was “pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals,” (“Nearly” because perjurers and personal buddies will still get a pass, I assume.) If Bush’s “judgment” in the Libby case rankles, ask yourself: if this really the guy you want setting sentencing requirements for all 50 states?<\/p>\n It strengthens the case for impeachment<\/b> I have not yet boarded the I-Train–I don’t want to live in a nation where, every time we have a divided government, the legislative branch spends all of its time and energy trying to eviscerate the executive, which is what I fear will happens if the President is impeached two administrations in a row. But my reservations only extend to Bush. The trail of slime in the Libby case leads back to Cheney, and I’m all for getting that guy gone.<\/p>\n If our government is like a house, Bush would be inside trashing the joint: breaking lamps, pulling over bookshelves (easy enough, given the amount of books he likely keeps on them), yanking up the carpet, and so on. He’ll leave a mess, but the next inhabitant will be able to clean it up eventually. The stuff Cheney and Rove have done, though–be it the avocation of torture, the obsession with secrecy, or the stacking the judicial branch–is more akin to a toxic black mold, that sort that infests a house for generations, rendering the place unlivable.<\/p>\n I think Bush is pretty much done for, and impeaching him would serve little purpose; but Cheney is like a guy who has had “a few beers” and is roaming the countryside with a shotgun (if you can envision that farfetched scenario): the sooner he is disarmed, the better we’ll be. Or, as Hendrik Hertzberg put it in The New Yorker<\/a>, Cheney is:<\/p>\n the most influential public official in the country, not necessarily excluding President Bush, and his influence has been entirely malign. He is pathologically (but purposefully) secretive; treacherous toward colleagues; coldly manipulative of the callow, lazy, and ignorant President he serves; contemptuous of public opinion; and dismissive not only of international law (a fairly standard attitude for conservatives of his stripe) but also of the very idea that the Constitution and laws of the United States, including laws signed by his nominal superior, can be construed to limit the power of the executive to take any action that can plausibly be classified as part of an endless, endlessly expandable “war on terror.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n