One of the strangest things of the last few years has been the passionate intensity of Libby defenders. There are few causes that seem to stir up as much devotion in some circles on the right as Libby’s. Henninger was practically weeping in his op-ed on Friday, and Quin Hillyer warned gravely that Bush’s failure to pardon Libby “will confirm a terrible tendency of conservatives failing to protect and defend their own when their own aren’t guilty of much of anything.” If it were true that Libby wasn’t guilty of much of anything, it stands to reason that a jury would not have found him guilty. If, on the other hand, he did lie under oath and impede a federal investigation–regardless of why he did this or whether there had been anything criminal about the original leak–then that is exactly why he should not be pardoned. The reliability of witness testimony under oath is essential to the proper functioning of the system, and cooperation with investigators is an equally important part, and it is unacceptable to undermine this. Obviously, the justice system is not perfect, juries can come to the wrong conclusion and prosecutors can engage in misconduct, and no doubt some true believers will insist that the latter is the case, but Libby’s defenders usually have no doubts about the system’s integrity. It is precisely and only when “their own” are in danger of being penalized for things they actually did that we hear all these heartfelt appeals for clemency. Bush already commuted Libby’s sentence. As was clear at the time, Bush was washing his hands of the matter once and for all when he did that.

Of course, no Libby post would be complete without remembering the depths of absurdity to which some Libby defenders sank in the past: here is Fouad Ajami likening Libby to a fallen soldier.