[Alberta's Child]

But that doesn't expunge his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice. As a felon, Mr. Libby is barred by law from voting or practicing law, his occupation for most of his working life. The half-measure reflected poorly on the President . . .

The folks at the WSJ are out to lunch on this one.

The "half-measure" was a very deliberate move by the President -- to keep Libby out of prison while he appeals his conviction. Giving him a full pardon before the appeals process is completed is really just a "three-quarters measure," because it won't change the fact the Libby is a convicted felon.

And lest anyone thinks this is just semantics and a mere formality, remember that when President George H. W. Bush issued pardons to nearly all of the key players in the Iran-Contra "scandal" before he left office in 1993, there was one notable name missing from that list: Oliver North. North's conviction had been overturned on appeal -- and the charges dismissed by the appellate court (an unusual and forceful move on its part, since it meant they didn't even think the charges ever should have been brought in the first place by the prosecution). So there was no need to grant him a pardon at all.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Giving him a full pardon before the appeals process is completed is really just a "three-quarters measure," because it won't change the fact the Libby is a convicted felon.

My understanding of a "pardon" is that it allows you legally to answer "No" if you are filling out an application form and it asks, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

Granted that as a public reputation matter, you would rather have never been indicted at all, and would rather have been acquitted than to have been pardoned. But I think that the entire affair, starting with the naming of an Independent Counsel, reflected very poorly on the judgement of President Bush to have allowed such a thing.