Maggie's Farm

Really? While it is arguable that Libby was caught up in something it is also helpful to remember that he volunteered for the position and knew Cheney for what he was: a lying, vicious, violence prone paranoid with no respect for democratic institutions. Knowing that he should have been aware that by doing Cheney's bidding he exposed himself to the law. Cheney views himself as above it, but that umbrella of denial did not, obviously, extend to his minions. Cheney stands as an irresponsible cheat in this because, as usual, he wants to have his cake and eat it to by having the benefit of lying and having someone else suffer for it.
Bush is merely an enabler here offering commutation to Libby, the knowing liar, for doing Cheney's work.
Libby is a victim, but a knowing one and for that he should be in jail. Better yet Cheney should be required to visit him there to know the cost of his desires.
Like Bush, Cheney cares nothing and shows no interest in the losses the military, soldiers, in the pursuit of their happy little war. Again, others pay the prices for their self-deception. Commutation suggests that Bush believes he has the right and power to relieve the hurt of bad decisions--and for the more than 3000 dead soldiers he does not.

Unfortunately, no. It is all too sadly true. We have been under the sway of elected leaders with a penchant for both secrecy and self-deception, classic symptoms of malignant denial, who have done their best to destroy or discredit key democratic institutions, while all the while crying loudly how much they wish to honor exactly those same institutions. The evidence is clear that neither has either a sense of humor or any ability at self-reflection. Consequently irony misses its mark completely. As we know from Shakespeare this combination is fatal to the holder and to those attached closely to them.

Nicely done, but wrong headed. I am, I am afraid, far too informed. The deeds and misdeeds of our elected executive have been well enough covered from all dimensions that one can form judgments with some confidence. It is only those, like Cheney, who believe that all history is conspiracy who believe others are ill-informed. The faint hearted belief in secret knowledge has led nations, as now, into a morass of poorly advised adventures leading to disasters of great scale. This is exactly another of these moments. And those who refuse to see are ballast to the sinking.

Ah, the Armitage question is well aimed. But the conviction was not, as we know, for the overt act but for lying to the grand jury: thus are the mightly tripped up in their smallest arrogance.
Nice reference to Solzhenitsyn, who lived but thirty miles from where I am, but again wrong headed for it makes the claim that 'political' somehow exempts an act from moral or legal judgment. This case shows that in a democracy that is not the case--wrong is wrong and it is actionable. Except of course for a venal chief executive who believe as you do that 'political' has its own rules of which he alone is the judge.

So many assumptions--where to start? The thread exemplifies precisely the problem--assumptions about others' motivations serving as justification for condemnation, exclusion, and judgment . But what if none of the assumptions are true? The whole house of cards comes crashing down as it did finally with Libby.
Perhaps the central example of what we witness here is the observation the Cheney sees that the world is a dangerous place and acts accordingly. Surely this would be his justification and if not explicitly it covers the behavior. But it leaves unexamined the effect of the belief which is to make it so. Believing the world is dangerous and treating its inhabitants as threats makes them exactly that. This used to be called a self fulfilling prophecy or described as blinded by one's convictions. The cost here is substantial and the gains minimal: that alone should cause us to re-think. Cheney's fears have become our watchword. Had he not been so afraid of chimera we would not be in this mess and Libby would not be convicted.
I believe it was established that Plame was actually covert by the way.
I would also remind you all that Pat Leahy is the other, more senior, senator from Vermont: no socialist he.

As to intellectual guides: Charles Hartshorne, AN Whitehead, Ernst Cassirer, Paul Ricoeur, Patrick O'Brian, Soren Kierkegaard, etc and so forth.