Let's start with Ezra's faulty reasoning:
I'd be overjoyed if Bush pardoned Scooter Libby. As Bauer says, and as I've argued in the past, "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." . . . That said, I didn't believe then, and I don't believe now, that Bush will pardon Scooter Libby. Bush will not tarnish his own record to protect a pawn.
Excuse me, Bush WILL pardon Scooter Libby, AFTER the 2008 election. So much for the big political advantage to be gained from such a pardon.
Bauer also earns his "wanker" status by writing:
Convicted of lying, he is not really reviled for that. It is his hand in a plot that he has been asked to answer for: a plot against war critics who have taken the administration to task for the mishandling, mismanagement and misrepresentation of war intelligence. But Libby, the only one in the law's grasp, is the only one to pay the price.
Excuse me? Libby is reviled for committing perjury to obstruct justice. What is Libby obstructing? We have no way of knowing for sure, but some of us believe he is covering up the Vice President's role in the affair. So he is reviled for lying. Bauer is simply wrong.
More wankery:
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, doing the job he was assigned, chased resolutely and relentlessly every bit of evidence from any source. It took him to the press, and there he made an enduring mark, squeezing prominent journalists and dispatching to jail the one who held out longer than the others. A government in war-time, criticized for hounding dissenters and for hostility to dissent, could enjoy the spectacle of a national security investigation and prosecution fully compatible with those aims. And this advance in the weaponry available to the National Security State is one that the administration could point to as proof of its commitment to the rule of law.
Say what? Fitzgerald has been fired upon by all Republican hands. Bush did not, will not and never has pointed to Fitzgerald as a sign of its commitment to the "rule of law." This is balderdash, or, to coin a phrase, wankery.
More wankery:
By pardoning Libby, he acknowledges that Libby is not really the one to confront the administration's accusers. Now the president, the true party in interest, would confront them, which is what his opponents have demanded all along.
Say what? Bush would never issue the pardon in that fashion nor would it be treated in such a way by the Media. This is delusion. Bush will argue that Libby is a great public servant who made a mistake and has paid a price. What in blazes is Bauer talking about?
More wankery:
Nothing in the nature of the pardon renders it inappropriate to these purposes. The issuance of a presidential pardon, not reserved for miscarriages of justice, has historically also served political functions -- to redirect policy, to send a message, to associate the president with a cause or position.
Sure that all can be true but Bush will argue he is redressing a miscarriage of justice. He will not be sayoing, 'yeah I did it? Now what of it?' Does Bauer really believe this nonsense? Very silly.
This is what Bauer is, in essence, arguing that we feel about Libby:
George W. Bush's father expressed his contempt for the opposition's "criminalization" of policy differences, with a batch of pardons for high Republican officials convicted in the Iran-Contra scandals.
That will be Bush's express message when he pardons Libby. And Bauer lends him a helping hand. This is wankery.
And the biggest piece of wankery of all (are you listening Ezra?:
Libby is said to be unpardonable because the act of lying, a subversion of the legal process, cannot go unpunished. Yet this is mere glibness. President Clinton's pardons included one granted to a farmer convicted of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding. The lie was not in doubt but other circumstances carried the case for absolution. Is the difference one of station in life, the difference between the Chief of Staff to the Vice President and a hog farmer? Progressives can't mean this, having rightly refused to accept that President Clinton's own misleading testimony in legal proceedings outweighed other considerations favoring the preservation of his presidency.
What other circumstances argue for absolution for Libby Mr Bauer? And why bring Clinton's testimony into this? Are you kidding me?
A right wing pundit could hardly have done better. Not only is this wankery, this is high level wankery. It shocks me that Ezra can not see this.
