Twelve paragraphs into the New York Times’ “news analysis” piece on the Libby clemency, we read the following:

Indeed, to administration critics, the commutation was a subversion of justice, an act of hypocrisy by a president who once vowed that anyone in his administration who broke the law would “be taken care of.”

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, called it a “get- out-of-jail-free card.” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, called it “a betrayal of trust of the American people.”

But to the conservative believers who make up Mr. Bush’s political base, the Libby case was a test of the president’s political will. In the end, although he did not go so far as to pardon Mr. Libby, Mr. Bush apparently decided that it was a test he did not want to fail.

Given that the title of the article is (at least as of 7:43 this morning) “For Bush, Action in Libby Case Was a Test of Will”, it is fairly clear that the Times falls in with the latter crowd in this case. The paper then proceeds to quote editor of the Weekly Standard and serial liar Bill Kristol bloviating about character and courage.

The President’s commutation of Libby’s jail term is nothing more nor less than obstruction of justice. Had Bush issued a pardon, Libby would have been compelled to testify were he to be called before any of the multiple ongoing Congressional investigations of the administration. Since Bush only commuted the jail term, Libby conveniently retains his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

As for the $250,000 fine and Libby’s “forever damaged” reputation, these parts of the sentence are supposed to constitute sufficient punishment and assure us that Libby is not getting off easy. That claim might be true for someone who wasn’t a powerful political operative. However, it’s pretty safe to assume that like so many disgraced and scandal-plagued Republican officials and pundits before him, Libby will find a highly-paid position with a well-connected conservative think-tank, thereby rendering his punishment rather toothless.

President George W. Bush, on his decision to commute the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Libby:

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said. “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 30 months in prison.”

Then-governor of Texas George W. Bush, in 1999, on his decision not to commute the death sentence of Karla Faye Tucker:

I watched his [Larry King's] interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,’” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.’” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking. [Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106)]

Readers of both the New York Times and the Washington Post are greeted this morning with the same AP story:

Iran’s elite Quds force helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala that killed five Americans, a U.S. general said Monday. U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner also accused Tehran of using the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah as a ”proxy” to arm Shiite militants in Iraq.

The claims were an escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran is fueling Iraq’s violence, which Tehran has denied, and were the first time the U.S. military has said Hezbollah has a direct role.

The article then proceeds at some length to describe the means by which Iran is plotting attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq.

The source of these startling revelations? Ali Mussa Dakdouk, a Lebanese Hezbollah member captured by the U.S. He has been under interrogation since March of this year. Obviously, since the President has told us “We don’t torture,” Mr. Dakdouk would clearly have no motivation to tell his questioners exactly what they want to hear.

One would really think that, now that virtually every claim the government made in the run-up to the Iraq war has been discredited, major media sources like the AP, the Times, and the Post would think twice before passing along single-sourced government assertions without even so much as a comment.

Then again, one would think a lot of things that don’t actually turn out to be the case.