As someone who has voiced frequent criticism at the current mainstream media it was gratifying to read today's (July 3) New York Times editorial on George W. Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month sentence and praise it as trenchant and a model of precise logic and reason.

The Times begins by zeroing in on Bush's lofty declarations during his first presidential campaign in 2000, when he sought to establish a clear-cut distinction between his self-pronounced law-abiding morality with that of President Bill Clinton.  Candidate Bush asserted, "(P)olitics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better."

An excellent point raised was the distinction Bush clearly draws between crime when committed by "common folk" as opposed to political cronies.  While Texas' governor Bush reportedly devoted 15 minutes to evaluating capital punishment cases.  

It was none other than conservative talk show host and columnist Tucker Carlson who reported the incident when Bush joked about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row, and whose sentence commutation to life without possibility of parole was supported by Pat Robertson along with many others on both sides of the political divide.  

Nothing fills a Cheney-Bush Republican with swelling pride more than running the stars and stripes up the flagpole.  This act is performed with a glorious declaration that their form of Republicanism holds a monopoly on traditional American values.

The issue comes down to what is a definable American value and if Bushies qualify as standard bearers for the tried, true, and ultimately patriotic.  Does the Cheney-Bush brand of Republicanism fit the historical definition of conservatism?

What neo-con chairman of the board Cheney along with perpetual preppy cheerleader Bush and company do not want you to know is that on certain basic issues, particularly those that relate to human liberties, traditional conservatives are closely akin to liberals in promoting and perpetuating rights of privacy.  

A true conservative of the Edwin Burke mold would fulminate loudly and lengthily against allowing authorities to arrest and indefinitely detain someone suspected of committing a crime while refusing to prefer charges or even allow that individual to see an attorney.

It was a veritable champagne popping occasion at the Weekly Standard after Robert Luskin, lawyer to Karl Rove in the continuing CIA Leak Case, announced last Tuesday that that he had been told by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that his client will not be charged.  

The Weekly Standard's editor, Fred Barnes, could not contain his glee in stating that Rove's "vindication" was a blow to Democrats in the 2006 campaign and welcome news to the White House in particular and Republicans in general.

Barnes was correct as far as the political spin is concerned arising from Luskin's announcement, and politics is the area of the right wing Republican journalistic partisan's concern, which gives him something in common with Rove.  

If there is one area where Karl Rove has made himself abundantly clear, it is in the all-important area of spin control and the valued place it holds in a Cheney-Bush political strategy context.

Whenever you see a service man or woman struggling, adjusting to a prosthetic device to replace their lost arms of legs, that is your legacy.

No matter how many limos or planes transport you to your lovely homes or fine offices, this represents but one outcome of your fateful Iraq war vote.  This is your legacy.  You and your children and grandchildren must live with this forever.

I can almost hear your quick explanation, "I voted for the Iraq War when Bush and his entire Administration insisted the U.S.A. was dangerously threatened by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."

The reality is this.  You were duped by a series of liars using forged documents.  The Bush propaganda war machine resorted to distortion while running the flag up the pole and using patriotism in the most shameful way, to generate a conflict against an adversary that posed no discernible immediate threat to America's security.  

Joseph Wilson in his ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos on April 9 had this to say to George Bush regarding the White House leak of his wife's name, placing her in danger, "The White House should come clean on this matter."  He continued, "My own view is that the White House owes the American people and particularly our service people who have been sent into war an apology for having misrepresented the facts."

But in reading the Seattle Times on March 29 we can understand why Bush found Joseph Wilson's research something to suppress!  Four months before the State of the Union Address the White House and the U.S. Senate were informed there was nothing to the fear propaganda that Iraq was seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger.  

Intelligence was being twisted in George Bush's rush into the Iraq War.  In the March 29, 2006 Seattle Times it was revealed, "A confidential memo recording a January 31, 2003 oval office meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair makes it clear that the two men were going to war in any event."

British author Philippe Sands mentions this memo in his newly released book, Lawless World.  The Seattle Times article states further, "According to the memo written by Blair's chief foreign policy adviser David Manning, Bush was determined to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. sanctions even if inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- President Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

The most insidious of traitors!!

I wonder what H. W. Bush thinks of his son after these latest revelations.

At first, it seemed that George Junior was toeing his family's line on the Plame-leak issue -- assuming a staunchly intolerant stance, publicly proclaiming that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of intelligence related to the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

But, after some consideration, and perhaps a bit of Rovial prodding, Bush jacked up the firing threshold from 'involved' to 'committed a crime' -- offering a significant buffer for those involved in the leak. President Bush on July 15, 2005, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

At that point it was clear that Bush knew something that we did not. Little did anyone fathom that Bush's original statement would have likely required him to fire... himself.

The five count indictment issued by the Grand Jury today is an important step in the criminal justice process that began more than two years ago.  I commend Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald for his professionalism, for his diligence, and for his courage.

There will be many opportunities in the future to comment on the events that led to today's indictment.  And, it appears that there will be further developments before the grand jury.  Whatever the final outcome of the investigation and the prosecution, I continue to believe that revealing my wife Valerie's secret CIA identity was very wrong and harmful to our nation, and I feel that my family was attacked for my speaking the truth about the events that led our country to war.  I look forward to exercising my rights as a citizen to speak about these matters in the future.