Well, here is the latest update on the Libby pardon matter. Now remember, despite what the charter member idiot voices belonging to the Defenders of Libby insist, the investigation came about because the CIA had one of its covert agents outed in violation of the law, filed A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, with the FBI to investigate. In other words, this was serious stuff. John Ashcroft recused himself, and as a result, his Assistant AG, James Comey, appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. (These last three guys, as you well know, are nice conservative Republican appointees, but to the Defenders of Libby are of course, rabid far-left communists, tools of the New York Times. Aren't they? They're not? Holy Simoleons!)

So today we now have the final piece of the puzzle:

Updated: 9:47 a.m. PT July 12, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

So the great decider has decided that the leak did occur in the White House, that he will not punish the leaker with the jail time, that the member of the Administration who was convicted for lying to the FBI, for perjury, and for obstruction of justice--and thereby obscured the full investigation-- in a fair trial, sentenced by a conservative Bush-appointed judge, whose sentence was determined to be enforceable by a panel of three judges (one Reagan appointee, one Clinton, one Bush); the Great Decider, who even admitted that the verdict was not in question, now wants to move on.

I ask you, if that is not corruption and cynicism of the highest order, what is? As always, when the white collar criminals get away with something, it's time to move on. When you get caught smoking a joint, watch out, because the Attorney General wants to impose tough sentencing, don't you know.

According to the Gallup/USA Today poll of July 6-8, 2007, two-thirds of the public thinks Bush should not have intervened at all. Here’s the fifth question:

From what you have heard or read, do you think President Bush was right to commute Libby's sentence, do you think he should have gone further and granted him a full pardon, or do you think he should not have intervened at all on Libby's behalf?
Right to commute sentence 13%
Should have granted full pardon 6%
Should not have intervened at all 66 %
No opinion 15%

Note how those approving the commutation or calling for a full pardon are just slightly more than the per cent that approve Dick Cheney. It still stinks. Well, this one drops onto the floor among the turnings.