Taking care of Scooter

The President stepped on his tongue several times in the whole Scooter Libby/Plame Blame Game.

First, three years ago, he told us all that if anybody in his administration leaked classified information he'd see that their hide got nailed to the wall but good.

Then, after it embarrassingly turned out that several people, including Libby, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage had talked to the press about Valarie Plame being an operative with the CIA, Bush said he meant he would nail anyone convicted of a crime for the leaking.

Then, after Libby, chief aide for Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury for lying about doing the leaking, Bush said he wouldn't comment or consider using his power to reduce Libby's punishment as long as there were pending appeals.

Then, Monday, when a federal appeals court said there was no reason Libby couldn't start serving his jail time while appealing his conviction, the President stepped in to cut Libby a break. He didn't pardon Libby. He commuted his sentence down from two and a half years in jail to probation and a $250,000 fine, because the original sentence was "too harsh."

Given that it was recomended by a Republican prosecutor, imposed by a Republican judge and based on established sentencing guidelines, there are some conclusions to be drawn:
*Criminal punishment is never too harsh unless it is being applied to someone you know and can sympathize with.
*Blanket statements about zero tolerance of leaks etc., don't mean much when the leakers did it to help your side.

There is nothing illegal or improper about the President's action. He has pretty much absolute power when it comes to deciding whose sentence to pardon or reduce. That's a safeguard built into the system to protect against potential prosecutorial or judicial abuse.

Not illegal and not improper is not the same thing as not hypocritical.