As witnesses were trooping to the stand in the federal courthouse in
Washington to testify in the case of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, and the
Washington Post was publishing its series on the squalid conditions that wounded
Iraq war veterans suffer at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center while
thousands more soldiers were surging into Baghdad, President Bush held one of
his private book club sessions that Karl Rove organizes for him at the White
House. Rove picks the book, invites the author and a few neoconservative
intellectual luminaries, and conducts the discussions. For this Bush book club
meeting, the guest was Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and
columnist and the author of "The Churchillians" and, most recently, "A History
of the English-Speaking People Since 1900."

The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The
president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over
Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has
faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he
believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than
it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he
is unpopular. He has God.

Even as Scooter Libby sat at the defendant's table silently wearing
his fixed, forced smile, and Vice President Dick Cheney was revealed by
witnesses as the conductor of the smear campaign against former ambassador
Joseph Wilson, Bush and Rove felt free to hold forth in their salon, removed
from anxiety. Rove had narrowly escaped the fate of Libby by changing his
grand jury testimony just before he might have been indicted for perjury. Bush,
who proclaimed that he would fire any leaker found in his administration, is
apparently closer to Rove than ever. The night before the Libby verdict, the
president had dinner at Rove's house, and Rove sent to the reporters shivering
outside a doggie bag filled with sausage and quail wings.

But why was Libby virtually passive? If Libby knew he was going to offer
the barest defense, why didn't he do as Rove did, amending his grand jury
testimony to reflect the truth? Why didn't Libby do as former White House press
secretary Ari Fleischer did, turning state's evidence and being granted immunity
in exchange for his testimony? What stopped Libby from risking indictment? What
prevented him from making more than a minimal defense that invited conviction?

Libby could not plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Had
he done so he would not have been able to continue in his position as Cheney's
chief of staff; he would have been compelled to resign. But why didn't he
testify? Why didn't he make the case of Rove's perfidy that his lawyer
suggested?

Libby and Rove's falsehoods in front of the grand jury, in which they
blamed reporters for telling them about Plame, were a cleverly contrived
coverup. They did not believe that the prosecutor would be able to break through
the curtain of the First Amendment or untangle the tale as told by journalists.
Both Libby and Rove relied on the same alibi, hiding behind the press corps that
they had manipulated for years and whose erratic habits they knew well. But
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was not about to be confounded by this device. He
knew the law was on his side, and he received a judicial decision forcing the
reporters to testify.

Just as Fitzgerald was about to indict Rove for perjury and obstruction of
justice, Rove got a lucky break. A reporter for Time magazine, Viveca Novak, a
colleague of Cooper's and privy to his conversation with Rove, became consumed
with an overwhelming desire to be an important inside dopester, and she rushed
to inform Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, about Cooper's information. Suddenly,
Rove produced an e-mail from Cooper that he had not produced to the prosecutor
for a year, refreshed his memory, altered his testimony, and was off the hook.
(Novak did not tell her editors or Cooper of her freelancing, and she was forced
to resign, in effect sacrificing her career to save Rove by the skin of his
teeth.) Libby was left to take the fall alone.

What bearing might this have on Libby's weak defense? Why didn't Libby and
Cheney testify? Observing the trial as it developed, Cheney may have decided
Libby would lose and that his becoming a witness was beside the point.
Ultimately, did Cheney's self-protective calculation trump loyalty to his
loyalist?

Did something change in the defense after its opening statement about
Rove (Libby "will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected") that led to
its refusal to follow up during the trial? Did the prosecutor have new
information that has not yet been made public about Libby and Cheney? If so,
that evidence would have been irrelevant to the precise charges against Libby
but might have come into play if Libby and Cheney testified. Their appearances
might have made them vulnerable to additional perjury and obstruction charges if
they were found to have lied on the stand. But who might have proved that?

The missing piece in the extensive evidence and testimony that detailed the
administration's concerted attack on Wilson, orchestrated by Cheney, is the
conversations among Libby, Cheney -- and Rove. Rove had made a deal with
Fitzgerald. Rove changed his testimony, escaped prosecution and went back for a
fifth time before the grand jury. Fitzgerald owned Rove.

Only if Libby and Cheney appeared could Fitzgerald cross-examine them about
their discussions with Rove, which presumably Rove had already testified about
before the grand jury. Rove was the hostile witness against Cheney whom the
prosecution had waiting in the wings, the witness who was never called. If Libby
had come to the stand in his own defense, and summoned Cheney as well,
Fitzgerald might have been prompted to call Rove from the deep to impeach
Libby's and Cheney's credibility and reveal new incriminating information about
them. Instead, Libby remained silent, Cheney flew off to Afghanistan and Rove
never appeared. Rove was the missing witness for the prosecution.

Now Libby's only hope is a presidential pardon. He has already offended
Rove and perhaps by extension Bush. Libby cannot afford to offend Cheney. His
pardon depends on Cheney's importuning of Bush. Thus Libby's final plea is to
Cheney -- and his coverup continues. Back at the White House, Rove makes the
next selection for the book club.

The president has since indicated he intended to go by the book in granting
what few pardons he’d hand out—considering only requests that had first been
reviewed by the Justice Department under a series of publicly available
guidelines.

Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web
site at www.usdoj.gov/pardon, would seem to make a Libby pardon a
nonstarter in George W. Bush’s White House. They “require a petitioner to wait a
period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement
(whichever is later) before filing a pardon application,” according to the
Justice Web site.

Moreover, in weighing whether to recommend a pardon, U.S. attorneys are
supposed to consider whether an applicant is remorseful. “The extent to which a
petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made
restitution to ... victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be
genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication,” the Justice Web site
states.

Of course, there is nothing that requires Bush to follow these guidelines
in reviewing a pardon for Libby (whose lawyer, Ted Wells, stated on the
courthouse steps Tuesday that he intended to push for a retrial, adding that he
has “every confidence that Mr. Libby will be vindicated.”) As Love, the former
pardon attorney, points out, “the president can do whatever he wants.” Both
Clinton and Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush (who pardoned Casper
Weinberger among other Iran-contra figures), bear that out.

Still, Bush himself publicly reaffirmed his determination to stick to
the Justice pardon guidelines as recently as last month. In a Feb. 1 interview
with Fox News anchor Neal Cavuto, Bush was asked about whether he would pardon
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted
of shooting a Mexican drug dealer who was fleeing across the border into Mexico.
Their case has become a cause celebre for many conservatives and anti-immigrant
activists who believe it symbolizes the federal government’s lack of aggressive
enforcement of border controls. Fueled by CNN immigration critic Lou Dobbs and
Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, supporters of the two former agents have
been flooding the White House with e-mails and phone calls seeking pardons for
Ramos and Compean.

Bush’s response in Cavuto’s inquiry was telling. He repeatedly pointed to
the Justice Department pardon process to explain how he would make his
decision.

“You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases. And
there’s a procedure in place,” he said at first. When Bush added that he
has been telling members of Congress who have contacted him about the matter to
“look at the facts in the case,” Cavuto followed up: “So what are you
saying?”

“I’m saying … there is a process in any case for a president to make a
pardon decisions. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed,
so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process,” the president
answered.

Rudy Giuliani's son seems to think his dad would make a better President
than he did a father.

"I got my values from my mother," 21-year-old Andrew Giuliani told ABC
in an interview quoted on "Good Morning America" yesterday, the same day the
Daily News spotlighted the rift between the former mayor and his only son.

"She's a strong influence in my life," Andrew Giuliani said of his mother,
Donna Hanover, seemingly drawing a contrast between her and Rudy Giuliani.
"She's a strong woman."

Andrew's outspoken comments came after more than a
year of frosty relations between the Duke University student and his father.
Insiders say Giuliani has increasingly chosen to spend time with third wife
Judith Nathan rather than Andrew and daughter Caroline, 18.

Giuliani has missed some of Andrew's big golf tournaments and Caroline's
school productions, sources told The News, even while Judith is constantly by
his side in his presidential campaign.

"I have problems with my father," Andrew told ABC. "But it doesn't mean he won't make a great President."

While Andrew stressed he still loves his father and said "we are both
working on our relationship," his comments are a sharp reminder of the
outrageous marital soap opera that accompanied Giuliani's estrangement and
divorce from second wife Hanover - which came after he and Nathan made a public
show of their growing love affair.