1825 K Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006
202-955-5665 (tel) | 202-955-5606 (fax) | www.ourfuture.org
Personally, I find the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby letters fascinating, an unmatched window into that most baffling of questions for ordinary citizens: how Washington thinks, especially, but not exclusively, its rightward precincts.
Of course, it's fascinating to see Henry Kissinger's name invoked as any kind of reliable witness, character as otherwise. But that's been a Washington disease for decades. The evidence concerning Mr. Kissinger these last several years has become very, very clear: he made a very specific set of claims and evasions in his memoirs and elsewhere about various events in which he participated that time and again have been directly contradicted  by contemporary documents  that have since come to light (and which Kissinger has made his life's work to suppress). A more blatant example of a naked emperor cannot be imagined. (Kissinger, naked: brrrrrrrrrr . Sorry.)
And yet Kissinger somehow still keeps his spot in the establishment as an honest broker. Authors cite his memoirs as if they were a window onto "what happened." As the rhetorical evasions that are the soul of his public pronouncements have become more and more obvious, even in correspondence having nothing to do with matters of state. See what he writes about Libby: "He pursued his objectives with integrity and a sense of responsibility. I would never have associated the actions for which he was convicted with his character. Nor do I believe they will ever be repeated."
Have you ever read more tautological sentences? He has character. Therefore, if he did bad things, it is out of character and won't be repeated. How do I know? Because he has character.
Similar verbal mobius strips are on offer from our friend Richard Perle : "Having known Scooter Libby for many years, I am unable to reconcile the man I know with the crime for which he has been convicted." And James Woolsey: "His conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice is completely inconsistent with my knowledge, and highest evaluation, of this man's character and integrity." Or when Douglas Feith  says: "In all my dealings with him, I found Scooter not only to be honest, but to be someone whose honestly was rooted in serious reflections about what it means to be an honorable person." And Alan Simpson: "all of this is so totally inconsistent with the basic attributes and the reputation of the man I know."
It's just, like, magic: a man who had never acted a certain way in his life, just suddenly started acting that certain way. Inscrutable indeed. It's easier to understand, even to respect, the cronyist buncombe say, of a Paul Wolfowitz: "He rarely talks about his motivation, but it is clear to me that it is in the noblest spirit of selfless service," "Despite some of the malicious gossip about him, I also know that Mr. Libby is one of the least partisan individuals you will find in Washington," yada yada yada. At least the only sin there is bathos.
Though nothing compared to this  creepy one signed jointly by Mary Matalin and James Carville. Creepy, because the letter is in only Matalin's voice ("His wife and my husband share similar political views...my husband...joins me in the sentiments expressed here"). She delivers more yada yada yada ("One of my man enduring and endearing memories of Scooter is of his universal love of families...") combined with more target-on-his-back stuff ("...which required not only long but also intense and often off-site work at the so-called 'undisclosed secure locations'.... And when the little ones finally trotted off to bed happy and full of candy and stories, Scooter went back to work, as was always the case, late into the night."). Really, read the whole thing, especially the paragraph beginning "My lifelong view..." . It's bathos on stilts. Clemency, she/they conclude, would mitigate the "additional devastation to them and the many other children who love Scooter." 
Anyway, back to the ways of Washington.
A lot of this character-witness stuff seems to concern free or reduced-cost legal services Libby rendered to these people. What's that about? Writes Wolfowitz: "In one case he helped a public official defend himself against libelous accusations.... The official in question was Richard Armitage who more recently served as Deputy Secretary of State." Now, Richard Armitage is not a financially needy person. He is, however, by any measure, a Libby crony. The favors these people do for each other seem to me, well, extraordinary. It doesn't quite feel to me like charity. Same with the free legal work he did for the family of a prominent media figure: Leon Wieselteir . He didn't know Wieseltier when his boss, Len Garment, presented him the case. Attests Wieseltier: "He had more better things to do, more pressing things, more lucrative things--but he helped us anyway, and in the finest spirit of charitable assistance." The portion describing what kind of legal work was required, and maybe he's talking about Mother Teresa stuff here. I certainly don't mean to imply anything untoward. But: what? In what world, other than Washington, does the top editor of a top political magazine a fit subject for "charitable assistance"?
John Bolton's letter is fascinating—an insiderish version of the kind of terrorist scare-mongering that issues from Karl Rove's shop. He gives an intricate history of this dangerous world we live in and all the Bush administration initiatives to keep it at bat ("The attacks of September 11, shattering as they were, would be as nothing compared to a terrorist attack successfully using nuclear chemical or biological weapon. [ed. note: a lot of these guys apparently don't have comma keys on their, or their secretaries', computers]... Retaliation after the fact, however massive, could never bring back the innocent dead.... Preventing or defending against the use of these weapons has a small margin of risk, especially for those who are the potential targets. As the leader of one terrorist group once said to a Western leader: 'you have to get it right every time. We only have to get it right once.'"
Then the payoff: "In the face of all these demands, keeping every detail straight is impossible."
So there it is: yes, maybe he perjured himself. But only because he was so busy protecting us from Armageddon. Don't you , dear judge, want us protected from Armageddon? (A bonus: that bit about "those who are the potential targets." In other words, Libby did all this heroic work for the American people with an al-Qaida bullseye painted on his back!! What's a little obstruction of justice compared to that??)
Check out, too, the conservative victimology: "Harriet and Scooter Libby are both deeply loving parents and the suffering of their children has been a torture for them both"; "Despite some of the malicious gossip about him..."
There's interesting stuff, too, about a facet of the conservative thought-system I'll be writing more about in the future. I call it the "Innocence Machine." It's in Doug Feith's letter , when he says "Scooter stood out in the government as a person of deeply philosophical outlook and humane principles... In these discussions, Scooter showed an admirable concern for preserving civil liberties." That's the classic conservative move (George Will made it last week in a highly defensive column  defending conservatism): no matter what bad things conservatives might do, the only fair way to judge them is the "philosophy" they claim to clutch to their heart.
What's missing from every single one— every one: a single forthright statement about the magnitude of the offense for which he'd already been convicted.
Read 'em yourself, and weep.