Consistency? Wuzzat?

From "A Charge to Keep," Bush's 1999 campaign biography, on commuting the sentences or pardoning:

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair."

President Bush, yesterday:

"I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

OK, so it's not technically replacing a jury's verdict, but that's a distinction without much of a difference here. Does Bush think the trial was "somehow unfair"? Or is he simply a hypocrite?

From "Sex, Lies, & Presidents," by Rick Shenkman (Washington Monthly, October 1998):

Every generation draws lessons about the world from the events it experiences. The generation that appeased Hitler at Munich concluded that unchecked aggression leads to war. Our generation--particularly the media elites--learned that a lie told by a government official is never just a lie; it is a sign of deep, profound corruption.

But it may be time to rethink the lesson of Vietnam and Watergate as we once had to rethink the lesson of Munich. If we find a man likable and approve of the job he's doing, then perhaps we should overlook his lies. Certainly, it's doubtful we should impeach him.

If only Scooter Libby -- which is to say, G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney -- had been more likable and popular, perhaps the liberal elites would be praising the commutation of Libby's sentence. After all, why should we break a butterfly on a wheel? Yes?

From "The Death of Outrage," by Bill Bennett (1998):

[O]n Bill Clinton's behalf, in his defense, many bad ideas are being put into widespread circulation. It is said that private character has virtually no impact on governing character ... that lies about sex, even under oath, don't really matter... .

If these arguments take root in American soil -- if they become the coin of the public realm -- we will have validated them, and we will come to rue the day we did. These arguments define us down; they assume a lower common denominator of behavior and leadership than we Americans ought to accept. And if we do accept it, we will have committed an unthinking act of moral and intellectual disarmament. In the realm of American ideals and the great tradition of public debate, the high ground will have been lost. And when we need to rely again on this high ground -- as surely we will need to -- we will find it drained of its compelling moral power.

Bill Bennett, from NRO's The Corner, March 6, 2007:

What we know is this: Guilty on four out of five counts is bad. But at the same time, we may have just seen the latest and most dramatic example of a troublesome trend of the times in which we live: the criminalization of politics. ... It seems plausible to assume that Libby was found guilty by the jury because they didn’t believe his account regarding statements recalled from his memory. But, when well-established journalists’ memories fail them in a trial about conversations that seemingly didn’t mean that much, it is hard not to excuse the Vice President's Chief of Staff about those very same conversations in a time of war.

If only Scooter Libby had lied under oath about sex, or in service to a Democratic president, we would have been compelled to outrage by a high government official's perjury! Yes?

From today's NYTimes story about the commutation, these quotes from and about Patrick Fitzgerald:

“In this case an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws,” Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.”

...In pursuing criminal charges, Mr. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney for Chicago, said Mr. Libby had subverted the justice system by lying to investigators. In urging a strong sentence in May, Mr. Fitzgerald called Mr. Libby “a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation.”

I agree with Fitzgerald. I concede that it is possible that this prosecution ought not to have gone forward. But it did go forward, and Scooter Libby, in the judgment of the jury, deliberately lied under oath in an effort to obstruct justice. Perjury is always wrong, and deserving of punishment. But it is especially wrong when committed by a high-ranking government official. This is why I supported, and do support, the Clinton impeachment. And this is why I believe that Bush letting Libby off with a lighter sentence is corrosive and cynicism-producing: the president has said that lies under oath under these circumstances don't really matter. Once again, we see that President Bush doesn't really believe that accountability to the law or moral principles applies to his people. As a conservative, I find this dispiriting ... but at this point, not the least bit surprising.

We already knew from the Clinton saga that many Democrats did not believe that standards making it a crime to lie under oath should apply to Their Bill. Now we know that many Republicans hold similar views about perjury when their political ox is being gored. I find it hard to believe that America, and the national character, is made stronger by this bipartisan moral relativism in high places.