The indictment can’t be far off: Doolittle wants US troops out of combat in Iraq.

Andrew Sullivan’s got a really quite hilarious post flagging the latest tripe from Marty Peretz about the Libby GOOJFC — Get Out of Jail Free Card (TM). Peretz says from start to finish the case was politically motivated. And certainly he has plenty of company on the right with ridiculousness.

Says Peretz …

the appointment of the special prosecutor, the prosecutor’s own obsessions, the case itself with the doubtful and understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses, including the defendant, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the judge, the refusal of the appellate court to continue Libby on bail – all of these were politically motivated.

This actually puts a finger on the key point in this whole drama. The case had profound political overtones. And certainly there are no end of people in the country who became deeply invested in this case who normally wouldn’t get overly bent out of shape about a run-of-the-mill perjury and obstruction case — which, at least narrowly speaking, this is.

But Libby never found his fate in one of those people’s hands. Not once. There’s just no getting around that point.

Go down the list.

1. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Decided a special prosecutor was needed and then recused himself from the decision because of his proximity to the probable targets of the investigation.

2. James Comey. Yes, he’s the darling of the Dems now because he spilled the beans about the hospital stand-off. But Comey is, dare we say it, a REPUBLICAN. And not just any Republican but a pretty tough law-and-order type who only months earlier had been appointed Deputy Attorney General by President Bush. He had it in for Scooter? He let his partisanship get in the way?

3. Patrick Fitzgerald. Again, a darling of the Dems now for obvious reasons. But anyone who knows the guy’s history knows that while this registered independent may not lean ideologically right (in the way movement whacks might recognize) he certainly doesn’t lean to the left. It’s no accident that his appointments have come under Republicans.

4. Judge Reggie Walton. Let’s start with this: He was appointed by George W. Bush. And if that doesn’t do it for you, he was appointed to previous judicial appointments by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

A mere calling of the roll like this puts into a razor-sharp relief just how silly these claims are. At every step in the process Libby’s fate was in the hands of someone who was either himself a staunch Republican or had been repeatedly appointed by staunch Republicans. The only thing is that no one ever passed him off into the hands a Bush loyalist. And that’s the key. Alberto Gonzales never got the hand-off. Whatever else you can claim about this case, it’s about as clear as it can be that partisan politics played no role in Libby’s fate.

Now, one other point on a somewhat related matter. In a strange sort of way Rich Lowry and I now appear to agree that President Bush’s commutation is without any rationale whatsoever. Needless to say, he now says it should have been a full pardon. But we’re on the same wavelength to the degree that we agree that the commutation makes no sense.

As I wrote just after the news broke, there would at least be a logic, though I think a very poor one, for a pardon. You just say, it’s all about politics. The whole case is illegitimate. And I the president am exercising my constitutional power to wipe the judicial slate clean. Period. I think it’s a bogus argument. But it is not an illogical argument.

But President Bush says the prosecution, the prosecutor, the judge and the juries verdict are all legitimate. He doesn’t second guess any of them. He just thinks Libby shouldn’t go to jail, even though that’s the normal punishment for the crime. There’s no way of understanding this other than to conclude either that the president simply likes Scooter Libby and — as many of us would — doesn’t want to see him have to go to prison or that Libby could provide testimony incriminating people in the White House, including the president, and that that is a risk President Bush is not willing to take.

Wipe all the chatter away and there’s only one argument for what happened here.

He’s our guy; we’ve got the power; so go f–k yourself.

That’s the argument.

Can anyone tell me more about Jerry Bowyer from National Review Online? He’s the guy in the video below who went on Fox today and chatted with Neil Cavuto about how having a single payer health care system will make us more vulnerable to terrorism. Where do they find these guys? Did I just not watch Fox closely enough in the past?

Is he on these shows a lot? Has anyone heard this argument before?

Late Update: Hmmm. Seems someone’s already done some digging.

The Business: Rupert Murdoch succeeds in $5 billion bid for Dow Jones. Via The Guardian.

Jim Sleeper offers a timely takedown of Time Magazine’s “apologia-cum-hagiography on Rupert Murdoch.”

Today’s Must Read: the White House bemoans its fate of being subject to Congressional oversight.

The McCain campaign continues to downsize. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Morning Roundup.

Conservative appeals judge dismisses the ACLU’s suit based on the plaintiffs’ ground to sue.

Update: We originally mistakenly attributed the dissenting opinion, which found the president’s Terrorist Surveillance Program to be illegal, to the majority opinion.

There’s a pretty high bar on posts that note dishonest links on Drudge’s website. But TPM Reader DP correctly notes that the top headline “Hillary Clinton’s Former Campaign Finance Director Indicted …” is to a story that ran in 2005.

By the way: President Resigns!

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) offers the extremely rare criticism from a GOPer of Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence, calling it “unfortunate.”