"Pardoning Libby would deliver something that prosecuting him might not: evidence that the Bush Administration sanctioned Libby's conduct.
Pardoning Libby, however, would amount to an acknowledgment--from the President, no less--that the leaks were done on behalf of a grateful Administration. The pardon would tell the American people, "Even if Libby did leak Plame's CIA affiliation, obstruct justice, and lie repeatedly to investigators and the grand jury, that's okay because he was trying to help us politically." The Administration's critics have tried--unsuccessfully, as yet--to make that point. A Libby pardon would do it for them.
Pardoning Libby would visit those repercussions upon President Bush. Convicting him would only make him a fall guy and leave the real responsibility for the leak vague.
* yesterday i asked: "(speaking of words, if any other country did was israel is doing tonight, do you think the corpmedia would call it an 'incursion'?)"
amy goodman steps up to the plate (surprise!):
"Israeli forces have invaded the Gaza Strip for the first time since withdrawing ten months ago."More from the demnow interview:
ALI ABUNIMAH: And we see that reflected also in the world reaction. Is it not astonishing that the entire world knows the name and face of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, while the hundreds of Palestinian children held in Israel's dungeons, not to mention 10,000 adult prisoners, thousands held without charge and trial, abducted from their homes in the middle of the night by Israeli occupation forces, remain nameless and faceless before a silent world?