It's only been two days since Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and already there is a rising chorus from White House apologists for George Bush to pardon Scooter Libby.
From the right came a Wednesday editorial in The Wall Street Journal, which thundered that "the time for a pardon is now," a point of view shared by The Weekly Standard, National Review and conservative admirers and friends of Mr. Libby. Many of the calls for his pardon demanded immediate action, instead of a wait for appeals to wend their way through the courts.
But setting aside, for now, the blatant hypocrisy of these former defenders of "the rule of law," have any of them considered the implications of George Bush offering, and Scooter Libby accepting, a Presidential pardon? Because a pardon doesn't mean you didn't really commit a crime, and a pardon doesn't mean that the court made a mistake, a pardon is:
...an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed...A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance.
Let's repeat that, "for a crime he has committed."
If George Bush pardons Scooter Libby, then Libby is admitting that he did in fact lie and obstruct justice. Perhaps these pillars of the Fourth Estate can explain why that's okay with them.