even if he did pardon Libby, I'm not at all convinced that such a move would (rightfully) refocus attention and accountability on Bush himself. Scooter gets to go free, and Bush suffers no recriminations, because the media has too short an attention span to follow the pardon to it's logical conclusion -- that Bush is a sh_thead.

Ezra,
Its when you publish things like this that I'm reminded of how pitifully young you are. Let me spell it out for you very, very, slowly (as commenters are doing for Mr. Bauer.)

A) If a pardon for scooter is a means to an end (tarring bush with the criminal actions of his administration and the Vice President's office) then the press and coverage around the Pardon has to be very, very, carefully managed from the progressive side of things.

B) That's so freaking obvious that everyone knows it.

C) How does something get managed? You don't spend any time at all, as Mr. Bauer just did, making the GOP case for Libby (it wasn't really a crime, lying is no big deal, libby is just a good soldier, nice people shouldn't pay for their crimes, clinton did it too and even better--clinton pardoned liars too.)

D) You make Bush's pardon serious, and not routine, by continually and agressively pointing out that what Libby did was a crime, on behalf of bigger criminals, in fact a criminal conspiracy, and that if Bush dares to pardon Libby he's compounding the crime. And he's compounding the crime because pardons for such things are *unusual*, Clinton *didn't do it too* and Bush himself has historically *refused to pardon much worthier people.*

See, that is how politics gets done. Only an absolute infant in the game would think that you get the effect you and Bauer seem to think you want (Bush tied to Libby and to the crime of outing Plame) without fighting to structure the overall narrative every second. Bauer's moronic argument is counter-the-progressive narrative. He trivializes Libbys crime, he trivializes progressives, he explicitly declares that there are no principles involved/no real rule of law issues (and thereby insults and trivializes progressive concerns even more) and he insists that progressives who care about what happens to libby, bush, and this country are really engaging in some kind of BDS derived anti bush thing. Bauer's piece couldn't have channelled GOP talking points more effectively than if they'd been dictated by Rove. That they were written by someone ostensibly working for Obama is not only pathetic, its frightening.

aimai

I expect the age stuff from less thoughtful respondents, but not from you, Aimai. (I'd bet Bob Bauer is older than you, no?). In any case, I think you vastly misread how a pardon would play, and are thinking far too little about how fully Bush has evaded responsibility here. The actual point that Bauer is making -- that this isn't about Libby, but about Bush -- is exactly the narrative that should be pushed out.

Aimai is right, on balance. Stuff just doesn't magically coalesce into a narrative that hurts Republicans.

The whole Libby issue shows you how little the game has changed since the 90s, really. Libby's defenders are out there on the talk shows, writing countless op-eds, all making the case that the whole thing is BS. And where is the competing argument? Where are the legions of liberal talking heads to make the case to the public that yes, this is a big deal, yes, Libby lied in order to protect Cheney from potential criminal liability, yes, it would be the outrage of the century for Bush to pardon him?

These arguments have been made all over the blogs, which is great, but the mainstream coverage has, as always, featured a total absence of liberal voices calling for Libby's head.

To the extent people form negative opinions about Bush because of a pardon, it's because most people are already predisposed to view Bush negatively. It's not because they truly understand what this case is about, particularly Cheney's role. We've still got a long way to go before we have an infrastructure that competes with the GOP's.

Bush will pardon Libby on Nov. 5, 2008 - the day after election day - if the conviction hasn't been overturned on appeal by then.

(I half-expect Cheney to try to issue a pardon himself, arrogating the powers of the presidency into the powers of the vice-Presidency. He'd do it if he thought it would survive the SCOTUS.)

What is the conceivable downside for Bush? Legacy? That's laughable. Remember - his father's pardons of the Iran-Contra felons might have raised a little stir at the time, but had no real long-term effect. The same guys got to serve in this administration.

Yeah, I thought Bob BAuer had even less excuse than you did, ezra, because he is older.

The point of my complaint is that
Uh, yeah, progressives think that Libby is just a little fish and Bush and Cheney are the big fish.
Uh, yeah, the country doesn't grasp that yet.
Uh, yeah, we need to work to link the two.
but, no, the Pardon isn't the only or even the best way of doing that. In fact since Bush can't be hurt politically at this point the pardon is neither here nor there if it is only used to link Bush to Libby.
The pardon *has to be linked to all the republican party* and its general tolerance of Bush/Cheney style corruption.

Not only do I not want to see Libby pardoned because I actually think the rule of law is important

Not only do I not want to see Libby pardoned because I want to see him pay for the conspiracy to out Valerie Plame and to smear Wilson

But I also want to see the entire Washington Elite pundit class and Republican hierarchy go on record pleading for Libby to go free

while the Democratic establishment, progressives, bloggers and others hammer home *just how disgusting this is.*

Bauer's piece, by up front advocating that we don't care about the rule of law but only about punishing libby or bush

that we don't care about what happened to valerie plame but only about "getting" bush

and that we telegraph our acquiescence to a pardon

is exactly backwards as a piece of political theater and as an effective strategy for linking bush to libby to a crime. You can't "get" bush for a cfrime that you say isn't important. And Bauer explicitly says that what Libby did isn't important.

aimai

Your title gets at the crux of this, Ezra -- you may be 'objectively pro-pardon' for tactical political reasons but what's offensive about Bauer (and qualifies him for Atrios' wanker award) is that he's *subjectively* pro-pardon. He really doesn't think Libby did anything seriously wrong.

Oh, and I have to side with aimai in being highly skeptical that a Bush pardon of Libby would prompt the media to focus more intently on Bush's culpability for his subordinates' wrongdoing. Far more likely we'd just hear the standard horserace-style analysis: 'Libby supporters prevail; praise Bush for political courage' while 'Democrats squeal like babies over Libby pardon'.

a pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept in some way responsibility for the conduct of his Administration in communicating with the public about national security and in its treatment of dissent

What nonsense. Bush would declare that the matter is closed, it's time to move on, Broder and Klein and Russert would nod in sage agreement, and Tweety and Scarborough and Leslie would all chime in about "another loss for the Democrats".

Scooter would withdraw to a well-paid sinecure at the Heritage or AEI, while Mary Matalin extorts money from lobbyists to pay his legal bills.

Sorry for the incredibly weird writing in the above post. I was multitasking and actually simultaneously on the phone with someone on another subject.

aimai

As an old man, a Native American, and a Vietnam War Vet, I offer this minirant.

What has occurred is that no person in our employ as our "agents", has now been put at risk of life and limb. Thus, anyone working undercover or covert can expect the "higher authorities" or the chain-of-command, to protect the Individual, and to expect anything more or less, should now be the predominant perspective. Thus, the risk is now so great and to expect one's friends and allies in government to protect "any" identity as a "safe harbor", is verging on the absurd.

Consequently, if it was up to me, I would label both the Judiciary Committees in Congresss as weak-kneed. Congress should have issued their subpoenas for all the journalists posing as citizenship to testify as to their ownership of the Plame name, prosecuted, and if convicted, given a large dose of hard time in one of national prisons known for hard time. And toss in Armitage too, among others.

Thus, I have very little sympathy for those who abuse the Constitution, and wrap themselves up while deep into their crappola. And if the door leads to Cheney and Bush, so be it, that Congress should uphold the Constitution for impeachment, and even if it fails to achieve the two-thirds necessary for conviction. As our progeny look back on history, they will find that Congress "did it" and correctly, and out of necessity, and not out of partisanship, but to protect those who are in our national employ, so that "outing" a covert agent should never occur again.

In closing I should apologize for this minirant, but what the hell, Telling the Truth is good for the soul.

Jaango

Aimai is right. This post is classic Ezra: attacking a bedrock progressive position -- pardon Libby! Canadian healthcare sucks! no one cares about family unification! strawberry pickers are overpaid! -- in the name of some convoluted political calculation with zero purchase on the real world.

Maybe it's rude to attribute these weird lapses to youth, but there's got to be some reason for such a smart guy to say such dumb things. And the alternatives all look less flattering, frankly.

I think that what offends me about Bauer's piece and Ezra's apparent endorsement of it is that it capitulates to the main wingnut talking point: that the prosecution of Libby is "just politics" and only about a confrontation between Bush and the Dems on Iraq issues. Yes, that's an important part of the background and helps you to understand the case, but the larger point is that no one should be able to lie and obstruct legally sanctioned law-enforcement investigations. No one. Saying that we should just get past all these messy leagl issues and worry about the tactics of the Bush v. Dems "frame" subverts this principle, which is very important to law enforcement work. It also apparently says to the public at large that when politics is involved, we can just dispense with the legal consequences of perjury and obstruction and get to the political smackdown that we REALLY want to talk about. Respectfully, I think that kind of view is a terribly short-sighted and inside-baseball one which risks further undermining public confidence in our judicial system. I like politics as much as you do and I'd love to talk about what the Plame case means politically and how to make Bush accountable for it. But blithely tossing aside any concern for the legal principles involved here is not the way to it, or shouldn't be.

Although this situation is undoubtedly political, it is, ahem, intensely cynical to look at the trial and conviction of Scooter through this lens.

He is guilty of a crime. The investigation, trial, and overall behavior of Fitzgerald were exemplary, truly amazing in light of the Whitewater investigation. This trial is about the only thing that has given me any hope that some institutions are not yet completely destroyed.

And now some progressives are willing to take the conviction and turn it into a political bargaining chip. That is what the GOP does, and it is wrong.

Yeah, he's guilty, but we can use a pardon to hurt Bush! That is infantile, misdirected, and, as Bush is a lame duck, pointless.

The idea that a pardon will cause anyone to re-think their current opinions is silly in my opinion.

Let the rule of law be applied at least once, please.

It's reverse psychology: what's the one way to make sure Bush doesn't do something? Urge him to do it.

I agree that the major flaw in Ezra's argument is his apparent belief, faith or presumption that a Bush pardon would be perceived in the light he describes. There's scant evidence for this.

Certainly, there's no way we should expect that the mainstream media would portray a Bush pardon in the manner imagined by Ezra. On the contrary, the MSM still dutifully regurgitates right-wing talking points. Why should we expect them to have a road-to-Damascus moment on this story?

Why wait for the pardon outrage, Ezra. What's preventing ANYONE from putting Bush at the center of the problem RIGHT NOW?

He's the Commander in Chief. He's the buck stopper. And the American people understand his central role in the fiasco that he's wrought -- this is why he's polling at 28%.

So what's the upside of the Libby pardon again? Letting a criminal walk so Bush can poll at 26%?

The election was the "accountability moment" and that's long past. He'll never own up to doing anything wrong and why should he?

All the comments criticizing Ezra are right.

And of course, Obama's General Counsel WRITING that makes it even clearer who the piece is outright wankery.

Cynical political considerations driving a position on pardon coupled with adopting of GOP talking points on the Libby case as well as throwing in a dash of Bill Clinton nonsense is the very definition of wankery.

Ezra missed not only the boat here but the entire ocean.

The practical result of a pardon for Libby is that Libby doesn't suffer any negative consequences for his crime.

The possible but indirect practical consequence is to confirm for underlings that they may break the law with impunity. The poor in central DC will continue to go to jail for breaking the law, but the elites in the Versailles Court are above all that.

The indirect consequences that have no practical effect include the confirmation to the remaining 30% that is the Bush base that they are strong and right, the Broderesque happiness that thank God civility has won out over the criminalization of politics, and the illusion among progressives that at last, AT LAST! everybody will see how bad Bush is and this will have some really great result.

There's no evidence that the powerful care what you or anybody else thinks who is not willing to use power to stop them. We're too civil to impeach for crime, so we'll make our point by pardoning well-connected criminals? Holy cow!!!

Nihil obstet nails it.

Ez --
Sorry, guy.
Any position you take that relies on the notion that the president somehow will feel the walls closing in on his freedom of action, or that this pardon somehow will become the "Saturday Night Massacre" is belied totally by the events of the past seven years.
He believes he's bulletproof. His aides believe they are. He literally believes that his executive branch is bound in its actions by nothing. It's time that at least some of them find out that they're wrong.

Yeah, Ezra, because all of our other schemes to get the media to focus on Bush Administration malfeasance and hold the big fish accountable have worked so well, and the media has respected us DFH's for being right *and* sensible.

Also, "Libby isn't going to flip" is up there with "We had to send the president a bill he could sign" as a great moment in Democratic broadcasting of Democratic impotence.

Democrats should not be in the business of letting Republicans tell them what to do. Or, if they are, they *really* shouldn't brag about it like that.

In my first reading of the piece, I missed this guy's complete misreading of the political history of both the Nixon pardon, and the Iran-Contra pardons of GHW Bush. If this guy really believes, for example, that the latter did anything good for the politics of the country, I'd like to buy my mushrooms where he does. All the IC pardons did was embolden a lot of the same people to do even worse things the next time they followed a Bush into the White House. That whole passage is utterly incoherent.

He believes he's bulletproof. His aides believe they are.

It's time that at least some of them find out that they're wrong.

Pierce, as usual, nails it. They will find out they're wrong when one of their elite number is put in leg irons and taken to a federal penitentiary, and not before.

Anonymous at 3:52 gets to the crux of why Bauer's opinion was wankeriffic.

He's arguing that the pardons of Nixon and the Iran-contra conspirators were good things. But in both cases they made it easier to maintain the illusion that there was no real crime involved. He actually says that the Iran-contra pardons were good because they prevented a criminalization of policy decision, when in actuality they conspirators were guilty of breaking laws passed by Congress.

He's arguing for a unitary executive in that case, and against the Congress being able to prevent the president from taking whatever action he wants to.

How can you not understand that?

Let's see, the whole of Washington is talking like Libby did nothing wrong and shouldn't have to go to jail, but as soon as Bush pardons him the narrative will completely reverse?

I don't think so.

Let's take a simpler case: George Bush allowed the country to be attacked on 9/11 and then went into a virtual coma on the day. It's as plain as the nose on my face that this is evidence that he was at best incompetent to protect our nation.

But what was the media narrative? That we should be glad Bush was president when this happened! It's a blessing from God! And who else could we trust to protect us now? No one! He's a hero!

We've had more than a decade of this insanity and you still expect all the talking heads to suddenly talk sensibly about the impropriety of Bush pardoning Libby? These are people who condone torture for God's sake, who make excuses for ignoring the Geneva Conventions, for illegal wiretaps, for violating the fundamental structures of law.

Yeah, they're gonna get right on holding Bush accountable for someone who even Democrats have publicly said should be pardoned.

And I am Marie of Romania.

Ezra, I usually like your writing and reasoning, but kid, you've triangulated your way into showing your age.