from the centre for american progress …..

‘After commuting the 30-month prison sentence for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, President Bush on Tuesday left the door open for a future pardon, stating, "As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out." Despite Libby's conviction of obstruction of justice, giving false statements, and perjury in federal court, Bush has shown a disregard for the rule of law with the commutation. In his own book, A Charge To Keep, Bush stated, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," in reference to why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas. But by commuting Libby's sentence, Bush abandoned both his own principles and the legal guidelines set by the federal government. Instead, he made a overtly political decision, appearing "to calculate that he would antagonize his conservative base too severely if he did not provide Libby some form of reprieve." While Bush's right-wing base is cheering the decision, the overwhelming majority of Americans are deeply upset over the President's clemency for a felon who helped launch the country into war.

Faced with a country who by 3 to 1 did not favor any form of pardon for Libby, the White House desperately attempted to spin the commutation. Not surprisingly, it was unable to keep a straight story. On Tuesday, White House spokesperson Tony Snow claimed the commutation was simply a "routine" procedure for Bush. But according to the Justice Department, commutation requests "generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Subsequently, "[f]or the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department," according to White House officials. Bush previously had commuted only three sentences, "all for drug offenses, from more than 5,000 requests. He has issued 113 pardons, fewer than other modern presidents." Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out several other contradictions in Snow's arguments: that the commutation was handled "in a routine manner" yet it was also "an extraordinary case," that Bush wasn't "granting a favor to anyone" but that the case got his "special handling," and that it was not done for "political reasons" even though "it was political."

Bush's commutation for Libby contradicts the precedent set by his own Justice Department. For example, in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, the Justice Department persuaded the Court to preserve a 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled Libby's. "The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has." In fact, Rita's perjury concerned simply "a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law." But when Rita "argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed." Many legal experts argue that Bush's clemency for Libby is "an unexpected gift for defense lawyers" across the country, who are already claiming, "My client should have got what Libby got, and here's why." "What you're going to see is [defense lawyers] quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge's desk," said attorney Susan James, who is using Bush commutation arguments to grant former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, convicted of obstruction of justice charges, "the Libby treatment."

Bush's commutation has provoked a nationwide legal debate over sentencing guidelines. In arguing for Libby, Bush considered Libby's individual circumstances, stating that the punishment was "excessive" and had already "damaged [Libby's] career and reputation and caused his wife and young children to suffer." Cheney said the punishment was not fit for the "fine man" that Libby is. "The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby." Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Department "would push for legislation making federal sentences tougher and less flexible," which would reverse the 2005 Supreme Court decision United States v. Booker, "which authorized sentencing judges to consider factors like a defendant's life story and the nature and circumstances of his or her offense." Thus, Bush's reasons for Libby's clemency directly contradict Gonzales's legislation.

Libby's commutation marks a continuation of Bush's consistent granting of amnesty for his top war architects. As Cheney's chief of staff, Libby repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. "He provided classified government information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of a series of articles highlighting Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that were later entirely discredited." Similarly, architects of the Iraq war continue to reap rewards for their incompetence on Iraq-related policies. Several, such as Stephen Hadley, Elliot Abrams, John Hannah, David Wurmser, Andrew Natsios, and Condoleezza Rice, have been promoted within the administration. Others, such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have joined think tanks that have the President's "ear" on national security issues, such as the American Enterprise Institute. To this day, none of Bush's war architectshave been publicly admonished for their corruption.