David Brooks: "End The Farce"

David Brooks writes:

In retrospect, Plamegate was a farce in five acts. The first four were scabrous, disgraceful and absurd. Justice only reared its head at the end.

The drama opened, as these dark comedies are wont to do, with a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson.

Mr. Wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to investigate Iraqi purchases in Niger, though that seems not to have been the case. He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.

In short order, Wilson established himself as the charming P.T. Barnum of the National Security set, an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. His small part in the larger fiasco of the Iraq war would not have registered a micron of attention had the villain of the epic — the vice president — not exercised his unfailing talent for vindictive self-destruction.

Act Two opened with a cast of thousands crowding the stage, filling the air with fevered vapors and gleeful rage. Perhaps you can remember those days, when the Plame story pretended to be about the outing of an undercover C.I.A. agent. Perhaps you can remember the howls of outrage from our liberal friends, about the threat to national security, the secret White House plot to discredit its enemies.

Perhaps you remember the media stakeouts of Karl Rove’s driveway, the constant perp-walk photos of Rove on his way to and from the grand jury, the delirious calls from producers (The indictment is coming today! The indictment is coming today!).

There were media types so eager to get Rove, so artificially appalled at the thought of somebody actually leaking classified information, they were willing to forgive prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for throwing journalists in jail. It was like watching a city of Ahabs getting deliriously close to the great white whale.

That was back when everybody thought Rove was the key leaker. But then it turned out he wasn’t. Richard Armitage was, as Fitzgerald knew from the start.

By the start of Act Three, nobody cared about the outing of a C.I.A. agent. That part of the scandal disappeared. And all that was left of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were the creepy photos in Vanity Fair.

Act Three was the perjury act, and attention shifted to the unlikely figure of Scooter Libby. As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum. People who knew him thought him discreet, honest and admirable. And yet the charges were brought and the storm clouds of idiocy gathered once more.

Republicans who’d worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical.

The trial and sentencing, Act Four, was, to be honest, somewhat anticlimactic. Fitzgerald, having lost all perspective, demanded Libby get a harsh sentence as punishment for crimes he had not been convicted of. The judge, casting himself as David against Goliath, demonstrated an impressive capacity for talking about himself.

And finally, yesterday, came Act Five, and a paradox. Scooter Libby emerged as the least absurd character in the entire drama, and yet he was the one who committed a crime. President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense.

His decision to commute Libby’s sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family.

Of course, the howlers howl. That is their assigned posture in this drama. They entered howling, they will leave howling and the only thing you can count on is their anger has been cynically manufactured from start to finish.

The farce is over. It has no significance. Nobody but Libby’s family will remember it in a few weeks time. Everyone else will have moved on to other fiascos, other poses, fresher manias.

Bush's Statement On The Libby Commutation

Bush's statement on Monday in sparing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a special counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, two years of probation and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the president the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

U.S. Appeals Court Refuses Prison Delay For Libby; Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

A US appeals court has refused to delay the jail sentence of former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced over the CIA leak case - Bush Responds By Commuting Libby's Sentence

The BBC reports:

A US appeals court has refused to delay the jail sentence of former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced over the CIA leak case.
He had appealed to delay his prison sentence while fighting his conviction.

But the panel of three judges turned him down, ruling he had not shown his appeal "raises a substantial question".

Libby was sentenced to 30 months' jail for obstructing justice and perjury in the inquiry into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, in 2003.

Nobody has ever been charged with the offence of leaking the identity of Ms Plame, whose husband criticised the Iraq war.

Renewed pressure

Libby was the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

He has not yet been assigned a prison or been given a date to begin his sentence. But last week the US Bureau of Prisons gave him federal inmate No. 28301-016.

His lawyers have not yet responded to the latest court ruling, but his supporters have called on President Bush to pardon him.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," former Ambassador Richard Carlson said, who is also a member of Libby's defence fund.

"It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

Judge in Libby Trial Received Threats

The AP reports:

The federal judge who oversaw I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's CIA leak trial said Thursday that he received threatening letters and phone calls after sentencing the former White House aide to prison.

"I received a number of angry, harassing mean-spirited phone calls and letters," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. "Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."

Walton made the remarks as he opened a hearing into whether to delay Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence. He said he was holding the letters in case something happened but said they would have no effect on Thursday's decision.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, argues that he shouldn't have to report to prison until his appeals have run out.

Walton has said he's not inclined to grant that request. But even if he rules that way, it is unlikely Libby would be taken away in handcuffs. Rather, it would lead to more maneuvering in Libby's legal fight.

Libby's newly formed appellate team — Lawrence S. Robbins and Mark Stancil — are standing by. If Libby loses Thursday, his lawyers have said they will ask an appeals court for an emergency order delaying the sentence. Because one of the issues in the appeal is whether Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had the authority to charge Libby, defense lawyers also could ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Then there is the pardon question.

Libby's supporters have called for President Bush wipe away Libby's convictions. Bush publicly has sidestepped pardon questions, saying he wants to let the legal case play out.

If Bush were to decide to issue a pardon, a delay would give him more flexibility to pick a time that makes the most political sense.

Bush's father pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others in the Iran-Contra arms and money affair on Christmas Eve 1992.

President Clinton pardoned more than 100 people on his way out the White House door, including former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal.

After a monthlong trial, jurors found in March that Libby lied to investigators about how he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of an outspoken war critic, worked for the CIA, and whom he told.

Libby maintains his innocence and says any misstatements were the result of a bad memory, not deception.

To win a delay of his sentence, Libby's lawyers would have to show there was a good chance they could overturn the conviction on appeal.

Attorneys argue that, during trial, they were unfairly prohibited from discussing the classified issues that were weighing on Libby's mind at the time of the leak and from questioning witnesses that could have helped his case.

Transcript of 'Hardball With Chris Matthews' for June 11, 2007

Guests are David Gergen, Mike Huckabee, Jenny Backus, David Frum, Chuck Todd, Linda Douglass

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Why do people hate Hillary? Is Republican Colin Powell backing Democrat Barack Obama? The politics is getting hotter.

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews. Hillary is out front on the Democratic side, but with half the country not liking her and her getting only a quarter of the independent voters, her winning the nomination could simply set up the Democrats for a loss in ‘08 that should be a win.

So Colin Powell didn‘t like the Bush policy? Then why didn‘t he quit? And what‘s this thing with Obama? Doesn‘t his flirtation with a Democrat make the Republicans look even more out to lunch this year?

And will Bush let his former assistant, Scooter Libby, go to prison if he can‘t get bail this Thursday? If he wants to pardon 12 million people who broke the law coming into this country, an ally on the right wants to know, why not pardon the guy who went down in the cause of pushing his war?

And 20 years ago tomorrow, Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and told Gorby to tear it down. And last night, Tony Soprano had dinner with his family. I watched at the Parthenon restaurant here in Washington, a Greek restaurant, where nobody talked for an hour straight. What‘s up with this thing? We sit and watch a guy play the jukebox? Do we love this guy or what? More on that later.

But we begin tonight with NBC News‘s Andrea Mitchell and David Gergen, a former adviser to four U.S. presidents, on the numbers facing Hillary Clinton. We‘ll get to Tony Soprano in a minute, fellows.

But Andrea, you‘re Hillary Clinton. The Democratic base loves you. You‘ve got minority support. You‘ve got gay support. And you‘ve got women‘s support. And you‘ve got working people‘s support. And yet we got a new number out in the Gallup poll, 50 percent of American people don‘t like you. Can you still win the election with that kind of negatives?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you can, because this country is so closely divided that anyone with her kinds of numbers can win the election. I don‘t think that as unfavorable as those numbers are—it‘s one poll—I don‘t think that that is disabling, given how divided this race is and how long a campaign it is.

MATTHEWS: David, you‘ve known Hillary a long time. You‘re very friendly with her. But she‘s got one other number working against her besides those heavy unfavorables, which people tell me are huge by any comparative standard. One in four independent voters likes her. That‘s it. She can‘t win the swing voters yet. What does she have to do to change that thing around?

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, it‘s an interesting question, Chris. I agree with Andrea, just for starters, that, yes, this is not disabling. But I do believe that it makes it something of a risk for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton because the—she may be the only person on the Democratic side who can totally unite the Republican base and force them out. So that‘s—that‘s what the risk is.

But I must say, I think out in the debates, she‘s been the superior candidate on the Democratic side. Out in New Hampshire this past week, I thought she clearly won that debate. She was superior in the conversations about religion. She looked good. She looked better than we‘ve seen her, and she talks very fluidly.

You know, I don‘t discount the possibility that given the intense—the intense hostility to the Bush administration, that she can take places like Ohio. A year ago, she couldn‘t win Ohio. Today, she could.

MATTHEWS: Well, the other question, Andrea, is we all suspect there might be a hidden anti-woman vote that sits out there. Suppose you add that hidden vote to the obvious vote, the 50 who say they don‘t like her. Suppose it‘s 60 or 70 who don‘t like her and aren‘t saying so?

MITCHELL: Sure, that‘s a problem. But all of these candidates have pluses and minuses, and I think it‘s way too early to count anyone out particularly her base, which does include a lot of women who will feel empowered and eager to come out and vote for her, will be more active than they might otherwise have been. More Democrats could turn out. More of her supporters could turn out.

As David just pointed out, places like Ohio could well be in play with Hillary Clinton on the ballot. So I think, like, with all of these candidates—look, there‘s a hidden vote, a racist vote against Barack Obama, if he were the nominee. And there are others who would be against John Edwards for other reasons. There are a lot of pluses and minuses to all of these frontrunning candidates.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about...

(CROSSTALK)

GERGEN: Chris, you just have to weigh that against who the Republicans have.

MITCHELL: Right.

MATTHEWS: I mean, if John McCain were in his prime and were really rolling right now, I‘d have to tell you, I think John McCain would be favored to beat Hillary Clinton. But given the state of Republican candidacies right now, she‘s a much more formidable and much more likely president—future president than she was a year ago.

MATTHEWS: Well, keep saying, you‘ll probably rev up the right.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the “New York Times” front page today, hardly a right-wing newspaper. “The New York Times” had a piece—it wasn‘t on the front page. It was abut—it was actually inside. The front page story was about Barack Obama last week, about what a great basketball freak he is and how much he loves to play b-ball with his friends. And—which helps him out because everybody loves basketball in this country, and we especially like good basketball players.

Hillary Clinton doesn‘t have a back story hobby like that. I thought it was an odd story for Patrick Healy to write today. He said, Hillary doesn‘t have a humanizing pastime. What you make of that? Maybe this is too weird. Let me go to Andrea Mitchell.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Andrea...

MITCHELL: Thanks a lot!

MATTHEWS: I know. But is this too weird? We‘re sympathizing—it looks to me like one of those pieces you write, or TV pieces you do, when one side complains so much, you got to balance your act, so they can‘t do a b-ball story on Hillary, so the do a, Gee whiz, I wish she had a b-ball story.

MITCHELL: You know, I think (INAUDIBLE) nation at war and with so much anger about the way this country is headed right now, as we see in all of the polling on “Right track, wrong track,” the basic question that is the real test of how people feel about the future of the country—I don‘t think people are going to vote for a presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, based on whether they can play baseball, whether they‘re good at tennis, whether they‘re good at softball.

(LAUGHTER)

MITCHELL: I just don‘t think we‘re in that era of, Can you throw the touch football? I think...

MATTHEWS: So you‘d be likability...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: ... far more serious—

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Tell me the campaign where we picked somebody we didn‘t like? I mean, the only time I can think of in 50 years of watching this business—the only time we picked someone we didn‘t like as much as the guy we beat, or voted against, was everybody liked Hubert Humphrey—even those who weren‘t Democrats liked him more than they liked Richard Nixon. But it seems to me in all—every other race, the guy who‘s likable or the person likable tends to win the thing.

MITCHELL: But likability is—I mean, what makes you likable? Is it your ability to play baseball or your ability...

MATTHEWS: Well, what is it? Whatever it is, it ain‘t working for Hillary!

MITCHELL: Maybe it‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: ... give smart answers about some of the issues that people...

MATTHEWS: Oh, you mean...

MITCHELL: ... really are bothered about around the kitchen table.

MATTHEWS: Andrea, are you saying it‘s a meritocracy, picking a president?

MITCHELL: I—well, no, it has not been a meritocracy, but I think that we are at a crisis stage in this country and that whether it‘s John McCain, Romney, you know, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Edwards or any of the frontrunning candidates, it‘s what answers they have to the things that people are really bothered about, including the war, including educating their kids and paying for their retirement and paying for gasoline—those answers are going to determine, I think, who‘s going to be elected this time.

MATTHEWS: David, you think it‘s going to be one of those...

GERGEN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: ... gut-check elections, where we ignore whether we like Fred Thompson, the cut of his jib, or we like Rudy or not, and we‘re going to look basically at the hard issues that affect our lives? It‘s going to be a very sober accounting we go through, rather than a personality choice.

GERGEN: Well, the one thing we know she shouldn‘t do, and that is go wind-surfing.

(LAUGHTER)

GERGEN: That was one—and maybe she shouldn‘t bake cookies, either. The—but I—you know, normally, Chris, likability does matter. You know, we like—we want people in the White House that we can relate to, that we want in our living rooms. I do think that one of her problems is that people don‘t necessarily feel comfortable thinking they‘re going to be listening to her over the next four years because she has a tendency to be a little preachy, and her voices is not, you know, a great asset for her.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: It‘s a little—it‘s a little harsh for people. So I think she‘s got to work on some of that stuff. But it doesn‘t always determine elections. Remember, you know, for likability, we would have had President Humphrey, not President Nixon.

MATTHEWS: I agree with that. By the way, you‘re right about the voices. It‘s not fair, but—my old boss, Tip O‘Neill, used to say Ronald Reagan‘s great strength, in addition to his good looks and charm and all that, was that incredible cowboy voice of his, that wonderful western voice. It‘s why so many anchor people come from places like—where‘s Tom Brokaw from? That part of the country...

MITCHELL: South Dakota. Yangston (ph), South Dakota.

MATTHEWS: That‘s where we seem to get our anchor people from, Johnny Carsons, people like that, Dick Cavett...

MITCHELL: Well, that‘s...

MATTHEWS: ... they all seem to come from out there.

MITCHELL: That‘s Fred Thompson‘s big advantage here, as he enters this race, is the voice, the Southern drawl, and the actor quality, the avuncular quality that actually is very close to Ronald Reagan‘s.

GERGEN: Yes, but...

MATTHEWS: Let‘s take a look at the Republican race right now, David.

Let‘s just switch sides for a second here.

GERGEN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: The latest AP poll has it this way. Giuliani‘s still out front at 27 percent, and McCain at 19. Fred Thompson, who has yet to make it quite official, although he‘s pretty much in there, at 17. He has bumped, as we say in airline travel, Mitt Romney already. I think he‘s on the road to bumping McCain. What do you think, David?

GERGEN: I think he is on the road to bumping McCain because John McCain‘s campaign has faltered so badly. But I think that poll understates Mitt Romney‘s strength right now because Romney—while his national numbers are not good, his Iowa numbers and his New Hampshire numbers are very impressive, and you know, if he punches through a couple times, Giuliani could come down real fast and Thompson could be left at the gate.

MATTHEWS: Why do the people in Massachusetts have a problem with Mitt? Every time I ask somebody up there—maybe they‘re all Democrats. I don‘t know.

MITCHELL: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: Every time I talk to somebody up there, they don‘t like the guy. They just don‘t like Mitt Romney.

GERGEN: Well, look, you know, the guy started out as a conservative in Massachusetts. Then he became sort of a Massachusetts-type Republican, very progressive, and now he‘s gone back to more conservative ways. But he also has—I think people really take umbrage here in Massachusetts at the way he‘s gone around dissing the state.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: You know, after being the governor—you want somebody to be proud of the job he‘s done and the people he‘s served. And for him to go around sort of knocking people in Massachusetts...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: ... has not gone down well.

MATTHEWS: Andrea, do you think—what is your sense, reporting around the country? Is this guy liked? I hate to go back to like ability, but it‘s one of the things we have to work with right now. Is he likable enough to be president, this guy? He‘s perfect-looking, I suppose, but what do we make of that?

MITCHELL: Well, he could be too perfect-looking, but he certainly is very smooth, and his pat speeches and his answers in the debates are very, very effective. So he‘s a good performer, and he does have that special quality of being able to sell himself, which is something that candidates have to be able to do.

MATTHEWS: Don‘t you have to say one thing at least that hasn‘t been poll-tested for people to believe anything you say?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: It seems like everything he says passes muster with the majority of Republicans. It‘s almost like you would think he was focused-grouped before he wrote the speech, or had the speech written.

MITCHELL: One could argue that, but of course, he then has to also figure out how to deal with all of the things he did when he was governor of Massachusetts which were not poll-tested for the Republican electorate.

MATTHEWS: OK. Andrea, what really happened last night on “The Sopranos”? Is he going to get hit, or was he just going to have another dinner with his wife and kids?

MITCHELL: It was such a clever ending, and it left all of us initially thinking, Oh, God, is that all there is? And then you realize that, you know, he could get whacked...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: ... very easily, indicted. The guy who went into the bathroom, the other two guys who came in...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: I mean, the whole sense of foreboding...

MATTHEWS: I know!

MITCHELL: ... as they sat there with the onion rings, it was unbelievable.

MATTHEWS: I was in a restaurant, you know, the Parthenon up on Connecticut Avenue. I got to tell you, there was 10 people at the bar. Everybody was watching like we were in the restaurant with him. It was intense, and then it went to black. David, what‘s your—what‘s the rest of the story here?

GERGEN: The people in Massachusetts don‘t watch “The Sopranos.”

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You‘re kidding!

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I was just at the North End yesterday having pizza at Regina‘s Pizzeria. (INAUDIBLE) there are so many Italians up there. Give me a break. Of course they watch it.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: David, you‘re just not ethnic enough.

GERGEN: Oh, I don‘t know. Listen, people up here love it, too. I did happen to be off in Vermont in the hills, and without...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You‘re not pulling the WASP thing on me, are you, David?

GERGEN: No, no, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... highbrow on me, are you?

(LAUGHTER)

MITCHELL: This is Howard Dean country!

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, regular people watched “Sopranos” last night. I can‘t wait to see the numbers. I like the guy. I like him immensely. There‘s some weird thing about likability. Once you decide you like a guy, no matter how bad he is, you like him. Anyway, thank you, Andrea Mitchell. I like his wife, to. The kids are no day at the beach. Anyway, David Gergen, thank you for the analysis.

Coming up, presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. He may not be the leading the Republican pack of presidential candidates right now, but Governor Mike Huckabee is getting lots of ink and lots of TV time. Does he have a message, however, that could sell to a party in search of a savior? Governor Mike Huckabee joins us right now. Governor, Huckabee, the Ted Kennedy question from 1980. Why do you want to be president??

MIKE HUCKABEE ®, FORMER ARKANSAS GOV., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

Well, I could tell you that I didn‘t not make the final cut on “American Idol,” but I think you‘re looking for something more substantive than that.

I want to be president because this country needs some leadership right now

that‘s positive optimistic and that can bring the country together not on

the left and the right and the Democrats and Republicans but that leads not

horizontally but vertically. I think I can do that. And I believe that if

the American people will give me the opportunity, we can really tackle some

of these problems that have divided us. And that‘s urgent, urgent for this

country

MATTHEWS: Well, this country is divided, However. Let‘s take a look at all these cultural issues, whether it‘s stem cell or it‘s abortion rights or gay marriage. Where‘s the middle ground on all this stuff?

HUCKABEE: You know, I don‘t think people have to give up their convictions. They have to be willing not to be angry at people who don‘t agree with them. No one expects to agree with somebody all the time. I don‘t agree with my wife all the time, and she certainly doesn‘t agree with me all the time, but we stay together. This country has to stay together when we understand that there can be mutual respect, we can have differences, we can be strong conservatives, strong liberals, we don‘t have to be mad at each other over it.

MATTHEWS: But many people believe that we should put doctors in jail for performing abortions.

HUCKABEE: Well, I...

MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) people in jail for that. That‘s hardly...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... the language of love.

HUCKABEE: That‘s the wrong focus for the pro-life community. We need to be talking about what we really care about, and that‘s the life of the child, not punishing somebody but protecting somebody. The heart of the pro-life movement, the heart of my own pro-life convictions, is not punishing, it‘s protecting. And I think when we start talking about that it‘s about life, it‘s not about seeing what we can do to injure somebody else, then we change the rules of the debate.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about the pro-science argument, that we need stem cell research to protect life, that we need to have controls over CO2 emissions if we‘re going to protect life on this planet? Those are pro-life issues, broadly defined, and yet you never hear people on the cultural right saying, Let‘s do something about climate change. They make fun of Al Gore. If it comes to stem cell, they all say no federal funding. So if you‘re pro-life on life before birth, why not take other positions with regarding these other issues?

HUCKABEE: There‘s a great article on the front page of “The Washington Post,” Chris, on new developments in the science that we may be able to actually use stem cells from our skin that would be just as effective as embryonic.

MATTHEWS: I saw that.

HUCKABEE: I don‘t know anyone who‘s against looking for cures for cancer and Parkinson‘s disease and Alzheimer‘s‘s disease. We all want to do that. And again...

MATTHEWS: Can you do that and teach Genesis in biology classes in high school? John McCain the other night—and you‘re a Republican—you‘re laughing, but this is—I never thought evolution would become an issue in the 21st century. But when people say, Well, the school board should decide whether to teach Genesis or biology or both, I mean, it seems to me you got to make up your mind. Do you believe in biology and science or don‘t you? Or do you say, No, instead of teaching the kingdoms of animal life and vegetable life and the (INAUDIBLE) everybody‘s prepared to be medical doctors in this country today, no, we‘ll also teach this other version, which is it was six days of creation and a day of rest, and we‘ll teach that as if that‘s science.

Don‘t you have to keep religion and science separate?

HUCKABEE: Well, I think the real debate is whether or not the president of the United States ought to be deciding the science curriculum in Dubuque, Iowa, and the answer is no.

MATTHEWS: No, but you were for things like charter schools and things like that.

HUCKABEE: Well, but what‘s charter school have to do with evolution?

Charter schools are...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... Genesis. You‘re going to teach the Bible instead of biology?

HUCKABEE: No. Charter schools are not about teaching Genesis. Charter school‘s about creating a competition in the environmental sector so that schools that fail have some options for the parents to put their kids in a school that might work, give them an arts school. If we were doing more to teach music and art, we‘d be having fewer kids with their heads on their desks, sound asleep.

MATTHEWS: Yes, well, I‘m all for that, too, but why are we going back to questioning science?

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think we are.

MATTHEWS: Why are we going back to—well, you said the other night we‘re not descended from primates. That‘s fighting words. You know what you were saying.

HUCKABEE: What I was saying...

MATTHEWS: You said—you were saying...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: Wait a minute, Chris.

MATTHEWS: If you want to believe that we‘re descended from the monkeys, you can believe what you want. That was fighting words.

HUCKABEE: It wasn‘t to me. And it wasn‘t...

MATTHEWS: It sounded like the Scopes trial. It sounded like that play on Broadway right now, “Inherit the Wind.”

HUCKABEE: Chris, the whole purpose of that question being asked was to see if we could stir something up and throw a—spark...

MATTHEWS: To see if you guys are Neanderthals or not.

HUCKABEE: No. It‘s to try to find out if we believe that there was a...

MATTHEWS: That‘s what Tom DeLay said the other night.

HUCKABEE: ... a—a god involved in this or not.

MATTHEWS: He said, the only reason Wolf asked those questions the other night, CNN—because he‘s a little bit conspiratorial, Tom DeLay—he said...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: ... was because they—a liberal network, CNN, was trying to nail you guys as a bunch of Neanderthals, a bunch of troglodytes.

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think he—he—that worked. If that was the—if that was the goal, it miserably failed.

MATTHEWS: Well, we have got three guys in our debate that said, including you and Tancredo...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And who is the other fellow? Brownback.

HUCKABEE: Brownback.

MATTHEWS: Who said you believed—that you didn‘t believe in evolution.

HUCKABEE: No. I—I believe in God. I believe that God created the...

MATTHEWS: So do we all.

HUCKABEE: ... the heavens and the Earth.

MATTHEWS: Sure. We all believe that.

HUCKABEE: OK. Then—then what is the conflict?

MATTHEWS: The conflict is whether he did it in six or seven days and whether this Earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years ago, if you only add up the begats in Genesis, or whether there was millions of years of history before us.

HUCKABEE: And here we are in the middle of a presidential campaign.

MATTHEWS: And you—and you—and you don‘t want to say there‘s millions of years before us, because that would challenge...

HUCKABEE: And here we are in the middle of a presidential campaign, and, Chris, I doubt there is an American family in America tonight sitting at the dinner table having a discussion on what the president, the next president, is going to believe about evolution.

They want to know, why are my gas prices too high?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you.

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: What about my kid‘s education?

MATTHEWS: So, you say it‘s not relevant?

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think it is for the presidential election.

MATTHEWS: Is it relevant...

HUCKABEE: I think we ought to be talking about...

MATTHEWS: ... where you stand on stem cell research?

HUCKABEE: Only to the degree that, if a president says, I don‘t believe in research, I don‘t think in medical advancements, yes, that‘s a real issue.

But I do believe in that.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: 2007, and we‘re fighting the monkey trial all over again.

Tonight, we‘re going to stay with Huckabee. We will be back.

And later: Should President Bush pardon Scooter Libby? That‘s our big debate tonight.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Here‘s more of my interview with Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: We had a president just recently—President George W.

Bush, until recently, was basically challenging global warming.

Now, that—you could argue—some people would say, that is anti-science, because you look at Greenland on the front page of the newspaper today, and the harbor is ice-free in the middle of winter. So, what is going on?

So, do you challenge global warming?

HUCKABEE: No, I think the real issue is, we need to take more into account for conservation.

A true conservative...

MATTHEWS: So, you would like to see a mission of controls?

HUCKABEE: A true conservative—well, let me finish.

MATTHEWS: Right.

HUCKABEE: A true conservative is a conservationist.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

HUCKABEE: You know one of things...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Teddy Roosevelt started it.

HUCKABEE: A consumption tax, instead of the current tax, would force people to be more conservative in their expenditures of energy. If we really want to say...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: ... let‘s do some conserving...

MATTHEWS: Boy.

HUCKABEE: ... have a consumption tax.

MATTHEWS: And that wouldn‘t hurt the economy?

HUCKABEE: No, it would help the economy. It would...

MATTHEWS: Would it hurt...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: ... fire up the economy.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... because a consumer tax would say, basically, if you save the money, you don‘t have to pay taxes. And people say, God, if I don‘t buy the car, I‘m making money.

HUCKABEE: But the point is, Chris, people are going to buy cars.

But you know what? Right now, we penalize productivity. We penalize...

MATTHEWS: OK.

HUCKABEE: ... people for doing well.

MATTHEWS: Let me get the Mike Huckabee story straight.

HUCKABEE: OK.

MATTHEWS: You believe that we shouldn‘t be talking about pro-science, anti-science, evolution vs. Genesis, that those issues are divisive?

HUCKABEE: There are issues Democrats and Republicans ought to be talking about they can agree on. Why do we have two kids every 60 seconds dropping out high school?

MATTHEWS: I agree.

HUCKABEE: Why are kids laying their heads on the desk and sleeping, in the most expensive nap in America? We need to be talking about fixing that, so we don‘t have a whole generation of uneducated kids.

And I‘m going to tell you, Chris, Democrats and Republicans ought to be coming together and agreeing on doing that.

MATTHEWS: OK. Here‘s a way to come together.

Rudy Giuliani is leading your polls in your party right now. And I have—I have said he has a lot of appeal. A lot of people disagree with me. But he is doing quite well in the polls. I don‘t know who is going to win your—you could win the nomination.

But suppose it works the other way, and Rudy Giuliani wins your party nomination, a pro-choicer, a guy is open to gay rights, and has other liberal positions. And he comes to you, Mike Huckabee, and says, I need a governor on the ticket with me. I need a guy who has different values than me, because I want to sell unity in my party, like you were saying.

Would you be part of a unity effort, if he said, either end of the ticket—suppose you—would you pick Rudy for your ticket, or would he pick he? Would you go for either one?

HUCKABEE: You know...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you to back up.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You said, you want unity; you want to bring people together.

HUCKABEE: Right.

MATTHEWS: Will you join a fusion ticket, one way or the other, with a Rudy Giuliani?

HUCKABEE: If you give me a couple of hours with Rudy, I think I will have him pro-life, pro-guns, and get his whole position straight on these issues.

MATTHEWS: Who are you, Saint Augustine?

HUCKABEE: And we would be a great...

MATTHEWS: Who are you? This is like one of these old debates with the Calvinists. Which—are you going to...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You are going to—you‘re going to turn Rudy around in a couple hours?

HUCKABEE: I‘m—I am in the conversion business, Chris. I think we can do it. So, that‘s—that‘s what I will say.

MATTHEWS: So, you must have gotten to Governor Romney a few years ago.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you very much.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: You‘re a great—I see your appeal out there. You‘re a very—a very popular fellow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: Up next: President Bush is standing by Alberto Gonzales, but will he let Scooter scoot?

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Margaret Brennan with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

With little economic or earnings news today, stocks barely budged. The Dow Jones industrial average was up just fractionally, while the S&P 500 gained about a point-and-a-half. The Nasdaq lost more than a point.

After a big drop on Friday, oil prices climbed today, rising $1.21 cents in New York‘s trading session, closing at $65.97 a barrel. There‘s good news about gasoline prices, though. The latest Lundberg survey shows that the average nationwide price for regular unleaded dropped more than 7 cents over the past several weeks to $3.11 a gallon. It‘s the first drop in almost five months.

A setback in the Supreme Court for cigarette-maker Philip Morris—the court blocked the tobacco giant‘s bid to move a class-action lawsuit over light cigarettes from state court to federal court, where damage against the company would be limited.

That‘s it from CNBC, America‘s business channel—now back to

HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

With the Democrats pushing hard for a vote of no-confidence against embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, why is President Bush hanging so tough in defending his old friend?

And with Vice President Cheney‘s former aide Scooter Libby sentenced to two-and-a-half years of hard time, why are so many Republicans unhappy with Bush hanging tough in not suggesting any kind of help is forthcoming for his hawkish lieutenant?

It‘s a HARDBALL debate tonight with former Bush speechwriter David Frum and Democratic strategist Jenny Backus.

Good evening. Thank you.

Should the president intervene in the judicial process with regard to Scooter Libby? Let‘s start with him...

DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well...

MATTHEWS: ... David.

FRUM: ... he has got a lot more options than I think people understand.

We had a very interesting discussion on “The National Review” Web site. One of the president‘s powers is the power of respite. That is, he doesn‘t—he doesn‘t have to give him a full pardon. He can simply say, you don‘t go to jail until your appeals are exhausted. As this judge...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What is the precedent for that?

FRUM: Oh, President Clinton did it. President Truman did it. It goes back. Many, many presidents have done it.

And it allow—you just say, the sentence doesn‘t go into effect pending the completion of the appeal. Normally, the idea that you would send somebody to jail, when he has such powerful appeals as Scooter Libby has got, that is very unusual. And—and Judge Walton‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Not for Judge Walton, it‘s not.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Jenny. Should he be...

JENNY BACKUS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well...

MATTHEWS: Should the president intervene in this legal case or not?

BACKUS: Absolutely not.

I think it‘s, A—I think he should not do it because it‘s the wrong thing to do, but he should also not do it because it is another thing that he‘s doing to—to really harm the chances of these Republican candidates in 2008.

Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Law and Order Prosecutor, you heard him talk in that CNN debate. I thought he was, like, channeling some gooey liberal Democrat. I mean, it was—he was—he was Mr. Anti-Law and Order. What about the rule of law in this country?

You do something wrong. You‘re found guilty by the system. The Republican Party is rocketing away from truth, justice, and the American way. And Super—Superman...

FRUM: Respite and pardon, those are—those are some of the rules of law.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: They are rules, too.

BACKUS: You sound, to use you guys‘ expression, Clintonian on this.

I mean, what—this...

FRUM: Well...

BACKUS: What...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... if—if President Clinton had been willing to—had been willing to take a pardon, that would have been terrific. What he did was, he—he just actually violated the rules.

And this—this—what is happening—what has happened with Scooter...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

FRUM: ... is just—is an attempt to say, look, he was convicted.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: And now—but he shouldn‘t go to jail?

MATTHEWS: What would be...

BACKUS: It‘s like Paris Hilton in the legal world.

MATTHEWS: ... the president‘s motive for intervening in this particular case? What would he say to the American people when he did such a thing? You can call it respite. You can call it commutation at some point. You can call it pardon at some point.

What would be his statement to the public when he did so...

FRUM: Last...

MATTHEWS: ... intervening in a judicial case?

FRUM: Last week, a woman who had been wrongly treated by her husband, went into his bedroom, shot him dead with a shotgun, and got a sentence about as tough the sentence that Scooter Libby got...

MATTHEWS: Right.

FRUM: ... for misremembering, or you can say he lied, but whatever it was he did, that he, in a case where there was no underlying legal infraction, and where the actual wrongdoing, the person who actually did the offense that is supposed to justify this enormous sentence, is sitting on boards of directors...

BACKUS: People—people...

FRUM: ... is a respected member of the Washington establishment.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: People who lie to grand juries...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But that‘s the president‘s call. In other words, the president, you believe, should intervene in this case?

FRUM: The president should intervene, certainly stop the sentence from going into effect, let Scooter Libby win his appeal.

MATTHEWS: Why? Why should he do that?

FRUM: Because the punishment is just so out of line with reality.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: I mean, Richard Armitage...

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... if you believe—suppose—let‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Perjury...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The charges...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... believe that this is a serious crime...

MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you. Perjury and obstruction of justice are the very charges leveled against President Clinton.

FRUM: Yes.

MATTHEWS: They were the basis for him to be impeached by the Congress and almost convicted in the Senate, with 50 Republican votes voting for his removal from office, for the charge of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Why did it justify that extreme, historic step...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: ... and this doesn‘t?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It doesn‘t justify two-and-a-half years in prison?

FRUM: He is—Scooter Libby is punished. He has—he faced fines.

He‘s...

BACKUS: How is he punished, if—if his sentence is respited or commuted or pardoned?

FRUM: Oh.

BACKUS: How is that a punishment?

FRUM: A pardon does not wipe away the fact...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... will not wipe away the requirement that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Should President Clinton—should President Clinton have been impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice?

FRUM: I think the president—that Republicans did right to impeach President Clinton, which all—which would have...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Why?

FRUM: It would have removed him from office, which—which Scooter Libby has also been removed from office.

BACKUS: Isn‘t—isn‘t...

FRUM: But it is sort of shocking. If there had been two presidents at the same time, both of whom had done the exact same thing, and one were punished, and the other not, I mean, the Armitage question...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You can jump in here, but it seems to me you have made an argument that I have heard before, which is, there is no underlying crime here.

What was the underlying crime that Bill Clinton committed?

FRUM: The underlying...

MATTHEWS: What was his underlying crime?

FRUM: I‘m not saying, in the Scooter Libby case, that there‘s no underlying crime. I‘m saying the person who committed the underlying crime has gone away scot-free.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Is not lying to a grand jury an underlying crime?

FRUM: Absolutely.

BACKUS: Is perjury an underlying crime?

FRUM: Absolutely, it is.

BACKUS: Well, people...

FRUM: The question is what...

BACKUS: ... routinely do that and go to jail.

FRUM: But...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Why—what is—what is different about Scooter Libby?

FRUM: Look, the question is...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: He is the Paris Hilton.

FRUM: The—the question is, what...

BACKUS: It‘s like getting special treatment.

FRUM: ... what—what kind of—what kind of punishment should he get?

BACKUS: He...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: And presidents have pardons. They can say, the punishments look severe. They can say—they can have all kinds of reasons for saying, as President Clinton did with—with a whole...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... host of people on his last day, this punishment seems out of line to me.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: This—Scooter Libby is the highest—highest-level official since the Reagan era, since Iran-Contra, to have been prosecuted. So, I don‘t think the comparison—the comparison with the Clinton administration is fair.

But—but here‘s my question to you. What kind of message does it send to the American people when this president, this president says that the law doesn‘t count for him? Don‘t you that think they‘re just walking into the same...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: It does.

FRUM: It‘s just bizarre to say, after a trial, after an investigation, after conviction...

BACKUS: Where he‘s sentenced...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... that the law doesn‘t count. The question is, what should the punishment be?

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you this. Do you accept the Burdick precedent that, if you accept a pardon, you have accepted guilt?

FRUM: I—I...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Jerry Ford believed in that. That‘s why he gave Nixon the pardon.

Do you believe that Scooter Libby should accept guilt as implicit—implicitly accept guilt as—in accepting a pardon?

FRUM: I—I—I—you—you mean as a legal matter or as a psychological matter?

MATTHEWS: No. No, legally.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, accepting—according to the precedents in the court...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: And this came through in all the discussions of the Nixon pardon.

FRUM: I‘m really not sure I understand the question. Like, should he make some kind of statement, or—or what?

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it carries the implication of acceptance of guilt, if he accepts a pardon?

FRUM: No, I don‘t think it does. I mean, I think you could say...

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be breaking with precedent.

FRUM: You could say—if you were somebody—if you are the person, and you think you have been wrongly convicted, and you accept a pardon...

MATTHEWS: Well, then Nixon never accepted guilt, then, you‘re saying?

FRUM: I have no idea.

MATTHEWS: Well, that is what Jerry Ford thought.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: I—I‘m with you on this.

I mean, look, I think—I think that that is what Bush—that Bush is going to try to justify that, that Scooter Libby accepts that he is wrong, but he does not really have to be punished as much.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, there‘s no remorse in this case? There‘s a lot of factors you usually get in a case involving a pardon.

And, in this case, there has been no remorse or admission of guilt, even implicitly or explicitly. So—so, I am...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: Sorry. You‘re saying, if you, as president, are convinced that there‘s been a monstrous perversion, error of justice, and things have been done wrong, that you can‘t pardon the person...

MATTHEWS: Yes, you can.

FRUM: ... unless you think the—that he was...

MATTHEWS: Yes, you can.

FRUM: You can only pardon the people you think are rightly convicted?

MATTHEWS: The precedent—the precedent...

FRUM: You can‘t pardon the people you think are wrongly convicted?

MATTHEWS: No. David, the precedent is, if you accept a pardon, you have accepted guilt. That‘s the precedent.

FRUM: So, a person who believes he was wrongly convicted cannot accept a pardon? That doesn‘t make any sense.

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s the question of whether he chooses to do so.

FRUM: That—so, you say, OK, I think—because I think I am innocent, therefore, I am going to spend 20 years in jail?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, because a pardon is not a legal—it‘s an extralegal method of getting a person sprung.

FRUM: Yes, I...

MATTHEWS: It‘s not saying you are innocent.

FRUM: Right.

MATTHEWS: See, pardon is not to say the person was innocent.

FRUM: So, you‘re saying a person who believes he‘s innocent should stay in jail?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No. I‘m saying, if a person accepts a pardon, you are accepting an extralegal method of springing them. They‘re not accepting acquittal. It is not an acquittal.

FRUM: Look, obviously, it will not be as good for Scooter Libby if...

MATTHEWS: If you want to—if you want to have it both ways, where the guy accepts a pardon, and is perceived to be innocent...

BACKUS: And then says...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: .. innocent...

MATTHEWS: ... that‘s extraordinary.

FRUM: I concede that, for—from Scooter Libby‘s own point of view, it is not as good to be pardoned as it would be to be acquitted. Obviously, that is right.

BACKUS: But...

FRUM: And I think—I think that is one of the reasons why I think this idea of a respite is attractive, because it allows an appeal to go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Whatever happened to doing the time if you do the crime?

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, David. Thank you for coming. It is a difficult case.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Do think he should be pardoned?

FRUM: I hope he will not go to jail.

MATTHEWS: But you—ultimately, you think he should pardoned, rather than serve jail?

FRUM: I would ideally like to see him win on appeal. That would be the best possible outcome...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

FRUM: ... after a respite. If—if he loses on appeal, then I think that the president should pardon him.

MATTHEWS: There‘s such an uproar out there I hear from friends of mine who want him, who really want this guy pardoned. I hear it from so many people...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: ... and especially Fred Thompson, who has made it into a cause celebre.

BACKUS: Well, but Fred Thompson...

MATTHEWS: I think he will be pardoned. I think the pressure is overwhelming.

Do you think he will be pardoned?

BACKUS: No, I do not. But I think that if he does get pardoned, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are in big trouble—and John McCain—in the presidential race, because --

MATTHEWS: They can‘t let this guy go to hard time, because I think he was serving the president‘s policies throughout everything he did. Anyway, thank you David Frum. It is an ironic situation. Anyway, Jenny Backus, thank you. Up next, half the country has an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. Can she do anything about it? This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We‘ve brought you the biggest headlines, now it is time to see what it all means. We begin with top political reporter Linda Douglass, who has recently joined our partner “The National Journal.” You have seen her on TV reporting from Capitol Hill for several years, out in the campaign trail, of course. Now it‘s on to “The National Review.” Also joining us right now, NBC‘s political director Chuck Todd.

First up, loving and hating Hillary. Even though Hillary Clinton leads most national polls for the Democratic nomination, does she have a likability problem? The latest issue of “Newsweek” takes a look at the gap between those who like her and those who don‘t. Forty six percent have a favorable view of her, which is high. But an even higher number don‘t like her. Exactly half the country views her unfavorably.

Can she deal with that? Is that too many people against you to start with her. She has another problem. Only one in four people in the center like her. Linda Douglas, you are an expert. I‘m going to build you up now. Can you win a general election if you only have one in four of the independents—those are the people in the middle—and half the country is already saying they do not like you?

LINDA DOUGLASS, “NATIONAL JOURNAL: Well, I think it is very hard. I mean, obviously this is early, so a lot of these numbers are like funny money right now. But I think that Hillary Clinton has a couple of problems, one of which just simply has to do with being female. It is very hard to do what you have to do as a woman and be strong, without appearing to be cold. That‘s number one.

But number two, this is a woman who has been on the defensive throughout her political career, all the way through President Clinton‘s first campaign. She was on the defensive about being a feminist, about being her own person. She was angry. We saw her as angry about being asked about his infidelity. She was angry about what she thought was the vast right-wing conspiracy.

So the country has seen her angry. I think that it is hard sometimes for people to put their arms around a woman who they see as angry.

MATTHEWS: Can you really help me digest why it is that people don‘t like her? A lot of people do like her. But why do so many people not like her? What is the not like about? You say it is her gender.

DOUGLASS: I think that‘s part of it.

MATTHEWS: People do not dislike Dianne Feinstein. They don‘t dislike

I mean, there are other people who have been out there politically, not a whole lot, I admit. You know, Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, although she had a very tricky reelection, Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, very popular.

Now, maybe they haven‘t gone for the brass ring. Nancy Pelosi, of course. What is it about—is it just—well, what is it? Is it people think she thinks she is better than us? Just guessing here.

DOUGLASS: Well, that is a guess. That certainly is a guess that many people would make, because she has been pushing back a lot. She is a fighter. And, again, she has been on the defensive.

MATTHEWS: Do people think she is honest?

DOUGLASS: Well, I think that certainly the Clinton team, whether fair or not, has been accused of having an ethical tenure throughout the Clinton governorship—

MATTHEWS: You mean the 100,000 dollars she made in cattle futures?

DOUGLASS: Which was something that was debunked during the president‘s presidency.

MATTHEWS: How was it debunked? I‘m still mystified how you can pick up 100K in a field you know nothing about.

DOUGLASS: Well, certainly they thought they debunked it. It went away. I would predict it is going to come back, by the way. I would also predict that the Mark Rich pardon is going to come back to haunt Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: Bill Jefferson is probably going to federal prison for 100,000 dollars.

DOUGLASS: Well, and the cattle futures, again, was never proved to be a crime or not a crime. It was certainly an issue that will be revisited.

MATTHEWS: Well, it is found money. Let‘s put it that way, found money.

DOUGLASS: Every other one of the things that was thrown at the Clintons, some of which—what 70 million dollars was spent investigating Whitewater, and it turned out to be nothing. A lot of that stuff turned out to be nothing, but it will all come back. And that is why many Democrats are worried about her.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Chuck, about this. Is this the—you know, Dick Cheney gets away with secrecy. He won‘t let people even know who visits at the vice presidential residence. He certainly won‘t let anybody know who helped him with energy policy, although you can assume they‘re all oil guys and the gas people. Right?

But maybe he is hated as much as Hillary? I don‘t know. Maybe he

only has like 23 percent popularity. Maybe they‘re both guilty of the same

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: He is hated more than Hillary.

MATTHEWS: Tell me about it. Is it secrecy, superiority?

TODD: Linda is working for the second best company in town, “National Journal,” as opposed to hear.

MATTHEWS: No, we‘re working together.

TODD: Exactly, we‘re together. Look, I think she is polarizing. Unpopular I think is the wrong word. I think some of it is fatigue. I think some of her unfavorability rating is not about hating or about her. I think it‘s fatigue of the Clinton name and fatigue of Bush. I think some of Bush‘s unpopularity rating is rubbing off on her, and that is something that I think that they worry about.

They worry about this whole—you know, the stat that they think that an Obama can throw, you know, hey, we need to turn the page. Do you realize there‘s been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket since 1980.

MATTHEWS: But people still buy Hershey Bars and M&Ms and they buy Exxon gas. People get into habits of voting. Don‘t they? Look at the people who get elected because their father was famous.

TODD: But in a change election—I have had this theory on Clinton, watching her in this campaign, which I think she is running a perfect campaign if she were running against an incumbent president of the United States. She should have—this campaign she is running now would have been the right campaign to run in 2004.

It may end up being the right campaign and she may get there. But she is running a much better cautious change, competent change campaign that would have worked a lot better in 2004, and a lot better than John Kerry could ever could have pulled off. She might have beaten Bush.

MATTHEWS: Every time I talked to somebody, they have a problem with her, male, female, mostly female. I cannot figure it out.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: I look at these polls, and she is leading all the polls.

DOUGLASS: And yet she has a lot of support from women. That really is her base. It mean, hasn‘t that been her base throughout this campaign?

MATTHEWS: Not in the chattering class I hang around with. Anyway,

next up, why didn‘t Colin Powell just resign? Former Secretary of State

Colin Powell has criticized this administration since he left office. But

why did he salute the boss if he did not fully support the war? Where was

Powell‘s tough talk against the administration when it would have counted

the most, before the invasion of Iraq? Here he is on Sunday‘s “Meet the

Press:”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM RUSSERT, “MEET THE PRESS”: After your presentation to the United Nations, and you realized that the information that you had been giving was faulty, did you ever think of resigning?

COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No. The information was faulty. But it wasn‘t faulty because people in the intelligence community were lying or trying to deceive. It was faulty because intelligence can sometimes be faulty. And it was not managed properly. It wasn‘t processed properly. And we should have realized the inadequacy of some of our sourcing earlier. But it was (INAUDIBLE) on the part of the intelligence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: What do you make of that? I know what I think.

TODD: He has always been the ultimate cautious guy.

MATTHEWS: Why is he covering. Why is he saying—

TODD: He is a loyal soldier. I can‘t tell you how many people on the left—you know, when he sort of dropped these hints that he might endorse a Democrat, I‘ll tell you their are a lot of people on the left who lost a lot of respect for Powell because he did not resign, because he didn‘t—

Because the whole point of him being in this administration, for those in the middle that did vote him—I have some relatives who ended up voting for Bush over Gore because they though Powell will make sure. And Powell wasn‘t there to stop it.

MATTHEWS: He helped sell this war on the two grounds most people bought it. There was a nuclear threat from these people in Iraq, and it was somehow connected to 9/11. All this stuff—he‘s talking about all this stuff when it‘s not proven. No, it‘s the stuff that was pushed that was not ever true that bugs me.

DOUGLASS: He laid—During this interview with Tim Russert, he laid this all on the intelligence, which was mismanaged he said, not in a venal way, he said.

MATTHEWS: I‘m sorry, it won‘t sell, because they sold us on the fact that he had a nuclear weapon. He was coming to get us with it in some balsa wood plane. And he was somehow involved in 9/11. And Cheney was right in the middle of it. It was not the intelligence community; it was the politicians, of which he was one of them.

He was part of this team that sold this war was based on bogus information, and the fact that they chose to use it was their decision. Nobody else in the world bought it. Nobody else went to war.

DOUGLASS: There was a lot of information that was out, even right before the war. I mean, Henry Waxman, Congressman Henry Waxman, who‘s now committee chairman, was debunking the fact that Iraq was trying to buy from the country of Niger this enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: -- were a joke. We knew they were bogus. Who knows which side of the war hawk crowd put up that information? Everybody on the inside knew this. It was not a question of taking the bad advice of George Tenet or anyone else. It was a question of—well, you know all this.

TODD: It was cherry picking.

MATTHEWS: Picking out stuff that would get us into the war, and that‘s why they selected it. Anyway, Linda Douglass and Chuck Todd are staying with us. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We‘re back with the “National Journal‘s” Linda Douglass, who has just joined our grand team here, and NBC‘s political director Chuck Todd. Next up, 20 years ago “tear down this wall.” On June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate, demanding that Michael Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall, a symbol of communist oppression.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Peter Robinson wrote that, one of the great speeches of the Ronald Reagan era. What‘s its significance?

DOUGLASS: What it reminds I think all of us is that this was a very, very popular president at the time of America‘s probably all-time popularity. I mean, it was such a different time, where you had a president who was able to certainly have the appearance of making these things happening, of contributing to bringing down the wall and to ending the communism that was sweeping through the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

MATTHEWS: Do you think Reagan was that popular in Europe?

DOUGLASS: Reagan was respected. Reagan was larger than life.

MATTHEWS: I wouldn‘t over-state that. I think they still don‘t like cowboy Republican presidents in Europe.

TODD: We are more liked than the Russians, than the Soviet Union. In comparison, we looked good.

MATTHEWS: -- we grew up praying for in church wanted out. By the way, do you know how you knew that? They had to build a wall to keep them in.

TODD: The biggest problem that this president and any U.S. president has now is there‘s no enemy. There‘s nobody to compare ourselves with, to be able to say, do you really want be under that regime. You know, it used to be, do you want to be the United States or do you want to be the Soviet Union.

MATTHEWS: Being an older member of this group I must tell you, I remember growing up and worrying about nuclear holocaust. I worried about a mistake made, a weird Armageddon moment in Cuba or Berlin. I didn‘t like it. This is better. I‘m sorry. I don‘t care what Rudy Giuliani or anybody says. Terrorism is better than the Soviet Union.

Anyway, dinner with “The Sopranos.” What is it all about, Tony? You‘re first. What is it all about? Everybody in America was watching this thing last night. They end up having dinner together as a family, with Meadow and the kid, Junior, and it was just a dinner. What was it about?

TODD: You know, the ending has grown on me. I didn‘t like it. I like it now. I get it. I‘m with it. I‘m OK with it. And it‘s—

MATTHEWS: Are we in a dream—

TODD: He has all of us talking about it. I hope he doesn‘t sell out to a movie. That‘s my biggest fear. Yes, my biggest fear is that he is somehow going to want to do a movie. No, let it end, because Tony was ambiguous. He was kind of good. He was kind of bad. So let it end ambiguous.

DOUGLASS: The foundation of the whole—

MATTHEWS: Did you like Tony?

DOUGLASS: Like? Tony was hard to like? I‘m thinking of all the people that he graphically murdered in that TV series. But I was shocked at the ending. I was completely shocked and disappointed. Then I woke up this morning and it felt like somebody you‘ve known for years and years, and they‘ve just moved away. And you sort of lost track of what happened to them.

And I think that is the feeling that Chase was kind of going for, not a hard separation, but just kind of the way people drift away from each other.

MATTHEWS: I like those world wary eyes of Tony Soprano. It‘s almost like a European old movie. You know, I‘ve seen it all. I‘m good. I‘m bad. I‘m everything. That look he gives; you know that dead look? It‘s such a great look.

TODD: And he knows that he always has to live that way.

MATTHEWS: I love the loyalty of the wife. I‘m sorry. I love it. I love it. That family having dinner at that restaurant, eating onion rings together, the kid who is a pain in the butt, the daughter who can‘t parallel park. It was so American. It was us.

(CROSS TALK)

TODD: He went into the mob so his kids didn‘t have to.

MATTHEWS: -- at the north end in Boston the other day, the Italian neighborhoods. It‘s so much a part of this country. Anyway, thank you Linda Douglass, thank you Chuck Todd. Join us again tomorrow tonight at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. Our guests include Don Van Natta, the co-author of the new book about, who else, Hillary, “Her Way” it‘s called. Now it‘s time for “TUCKER.”

More Than Fair

Jail Time for Scooter Libby

The NYT opines:

The jail sentence and fine imposed on Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, are an appropriate — indeed necessary — punishment for his repeated lies to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating a possible smear campaign orchestrated by the White House. Although Mr. Libby plans to appeal, as he has every legal right to, the judge ought to send him to jail now as a lesson that such efforts to frustrate justice will not be tolerated.

Mr. Libby was convicted in March for lying about his role in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, a C.I.A. officer, as part of a campaign to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson. He was a diplomat whose inquiries abroad had shot holes through a key premise for the war in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had recently tried to buy uranium from Niger for a secret nuclear weapons program. Although Mr. Libby’s supporters make much of the fact that no one was ever indicted for leaking Ms. Wilson’s name, that should not obscure the fact that Mr. Libby did his best to derail efforts to find out who did it and why.

Federal District Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Mr. Libby to two and a half years in prison and fined him $250,000 based on “overwhelming evidence” of Mr. Libby’s guilt on four counts, including obstruction of justice, perjury and giving false statements. The jail term was at the low end of what the prosecutor had recommended but much harsher than the probation sought by Mr. Libby’s attorneys.

Although Libby partisans sometimes suggest that he is being railroaded because of anger over his zeal in promoting the disastrous war in Iraq, that is hardly the case here. Judge Walton, who was appointed to the federal bench by the current President Bush, is simply known for a tough-on-crime attitude that transcends politics.

Mr. Libby’s attorneys are asking that he be allowed to remain free while his appeal goes forward, but there is no good reason for Judge Walton to grant such undeserved leniency. Some analysts suggest that the Libby strategy is to run out the clock with an appeal and then count on a last-minute pardon from President Bush as he leaves office. At a time when high administration officials routinely dissemble and claim lapses of memory, immediate jail time for Mr. Libby, a convicted felon, is the best way to send a message that obstruction of justice will be severely punished.

Letters Cast Light on Cheney's Inner Circle

Dozens of Prominent Figures and Insiders Praise Libby as Fundamentally Decent

The Washington Post reports:

For nearly seven years, the office of the vice president has been a virtual black hole for information about the Bush administration. But yesterday, a series of letters aimed at securing leniency for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, provided a small, if selective, window on the world of Cheney and his aides.

Lewis A. Hoffman, the vice president's White House physician, asked Judge Reggie B. Walton to understand "the mindset that was pervasive" in the vice president's office after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the "real fear about what the future held."

"I can tell you for certain that Mr. Libby worked himself to exhaustion day after day," Hoffman wrote in a letter dated April 26. "This is a testimony to his devotion to our nation and the Vice President. I also believe that such continuous stress and total exhaustion is just the setting where a person might honestly confuse what he said to who on what day."

Elizabeth A. Denny, who worked with Libby as the vice president's social secretary, wrote that her "heart broke" the day Libby walked out of the White House after his indictment on perjury charges in 2005. "I could feel a vacuum sucking the wind out of our office, out of the White House," she said. "I could feel his absence immediately in a very large way. I still can't figure it out."

The letters were among more than 150 released by the U.S. District Court in Washington shortly before Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison and ordered him to pay a $250,000 fine. [.pdf of all letters]

Most came from former colleagues and law partners, friends, neighbors and players in Libby's regular touch football game -- as well as a collection of prominent conservative intellectuals -- who urged the judge to take into account what they described as a lifetime of selfless public service and devotion to family. Some appear to have been solicited by Libby's lawyers; other letter writers said they were writing voluntarily to try to provide a fuller view of Libby's life.

"I regard him as among the most gifted and valuable public servants of his generation," wrote Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of conservative opinion journal Commentary. "I find it inconceivable that a man of his sterling character, who is also famous for his lawyerly scrupulousness, could deliberately have told lies to a grand jury, or for that matter to anyone else."

A smaller number came from ordinary citizens who expressed outrage over Libby's actions and urged the stiffest possible sentence.

"The message sent by this man's actions and the posturing of his cronies that Mr. Libby has been convicted wrongfully for innocent misstatements, at most legal technicalities, is an appalling approval of outrageous behavior that undermines the justice system and undermines faith in government," wrote Steven C. Hychka, whose home address was blacked out by the court, as were all the others.

The writers included some of the most prominent names in conservative thinking about foreign policy, as well as current and former senior government officials -- Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Gen. Peter Pace and Henry A. Kissinger.

"He is a man of strong views, some of which I do not share," Kissinger wrote. "But in my observations, he pursued his objectives with integrity and a sense of responsibility. I would never have associated his actions for which he was convicted with his character. . . . Having served in the White House and under pressure, I have seen how difficult it sometimes is to recall precisely a particular sequence of events. This does not justify the action, but it might help you consider mitigating circumstances."

Cheney did not write a letter. His spokeswoman declined to answer questions about the case, saying his statement after the sentencing -- which lamented the sentence and praised Libby -- spoke for itself. She said she did not know whether aides wrote letters on their own or were solicited by Cheney's lawyers.

Some letters came from prominent Democrats, including Richard Danzig, secretary of the Navy during the Clinton administration, and James Carville, who signed a supportive message with his wife, Mary Matalin.

Several letter writers, even some who indicated they disagreed with Libby, said they found Libby to be a man of uncommon decency. "While he has been portrayed in the press as an ideologue and highly partisan, this characterization is very far from the truth in all of my dealings with him over the years," wrote Francis Fukuyama, a prominent foreign-policy thinker. "To the contrary, in my discussions with him on issues from Middle East diplomacy to his work on the Cox Commission to the Iraq war, he has always been open to different views and notably without rancor."

Like Kissinger, other letter writers sought to buttress a major line of Libby's defense, that he innocently forgot some of his conversations in the Valerie Plame case because of his crushing workload. John R. Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador, wrote of how "information flowed across his desk on a daily basis like water coming out of a high-pressure fire hydrant, with more demands for action than could humanly be met."

"In the face of all these demands, keeping every detail straight is impossible," Bolton wrote.

Others offered details of what they described as Libby's crucial role in key administration decisions. Former ambassador and White House aide Robert D. Blackwill called Libby a "crucial voice" in President Bush's decision to accelerate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

"Sadly I believe that Mr. Libby's premature departure from the Administration has been a major reason for the downward spiral of the situation in Iraq and the consuming mess in which we find ourselves today regarding that country," he wrote.

Many letter writers expressed frustration over the Libby saga's conclusion. Former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) wrote that he "shall always remain eternally puzzled how the situation ever 'came to this.' Some are of the opinion that he has 'fallen upon his sword' and yet, it is my perception that the sword has fallen upon him!"

Cheney and Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Committee

Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.

At the National Journal, Murray Waas reports:

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters. Fitzgerald could announce as soon as tomorrow whether a federal grand jury is handing up indictments in the case.

Central to Fitzgerald's investigation is whether administration officials disclosed Plame's identity and CIA status in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador and vocal Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who wrote newspaper op-ed columns and made other public charges beginning in 2003 that the administration misused intelligence on Iraq that he gathered on a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa.

In recent weeks Fitzgerald's investigation has zeroed in on the activities of Libby, who is Cheney's top national security and foreign policy advisor, as well as the conflict between the vice president's office on one side and the CIA and State Department on the other over the use of intelligence on Iraq. The New York Times reported this week, for example, that Libby first learned about Plame and her covert CIA status from Cheney in a conversation with the vice president weeks before Plame's cover was blown in a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak.

The Intelligence Committee at the time was trying to determine whether the CIA and other intelligence agencies provided faulty or erroneous intelligence on Iraq to President Bush and other government officials. But the committee deferred the much more politically sensitive issue as to whether the president and the vice president themselves, or other administration officials, misrepresented intelligence information to bolster the case to go to war. An Intelligence Committee spokesperson says the panel is still working on this second phase of the investigation.

Had the withheld information been turned over, according to administration and congressional sources, it likely would have shifted a portion of the blame away from the intelligence agencies to the Bush administration as to who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community.

In April 2004, the Intelligence Committee released a report that concluded that "much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency for inclusion in Secretary Powell's [United Nation's] speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee say that their investigation was hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over key documents, although Republicans said the documents were not as central to the investigation.

In addition to withholding drafts of Powell's speech -- which included passages written by Libby -- the administration also refused to turn over to the committee contents of the president's morning intelligence briefings on Iraq, sources say. These documents, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, are a written summary of intelligence information and analysis provided by the CIA to the president.

One congressional source said, for example, that senators wanted to review the PDBs to determine whether dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Department of Energy, and other agencies that often disagreed with the CIA on the question of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were being presented to the president.

An administration spokesperson said that the White House was justified in turning down the document demand from the Senate, saying that the papers reflected "deliberative discussions" among "executive branch principals" and were thus covered under longstanding precedent and executive privilege rules. Throughout the president's five years in office, the Bush administration has been consistently adamant about not turning internal documents over to Congress and other outside bodies.

At the same time, however, administration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.

Administration sources also said that Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, played a central role in the White House decision not to turn over the documents. Addington did not return phone calls seeking comment. Cheney's office declined to comment after requesting that any questions for this article be submitted in writing.

A former senior administration official familiar with the discussions on whether to turn over the materials said there was a "political element" in the matter. This official said the White House did not want to turn over records during an election year that could used by critics to argue that the administration used incomplete or faulty intelligence to go to war with Iraq. "Nobody wants something like this dissected or coming out in an election year," the former official said.

But the same former official also said that Libby felt passionate that the CIA and other agencies were not doing a good job at intelligence gathering, that the Iraqi war was a noble cause, and that he and the vice president were only making their case in good faith. According to the former official, Libby cited those reasons in fighting for the inclusion in Powell's U.N. speech of intelligence information that others mistrusted, in opposing the release of documents to the Intelligence Committee, and in moving aggressively to counter Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration distorted intelligence findings.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee backed the document request to the White House regarding Libby's drafts of the Powell speech, communications between Libby and other administration officials on intelligence information that might be included in the speech, and Libby's contacts with officials in the intelligence community relating to Iraq.

In his address to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Powell argued that intelligence information showed that Saddam Hussein's regime was aggressively pursuing programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons

Only after the war did U.N. inspectors and the public at large learn that the intelligence data had been incorrect and that Iraq had been so crippled by international sanctions that it could not sustain such a program.

The April 2004 Senate report blasted what it referred to as an insular and risk- averse culture of bureaucratic "group think" in which officials were reluctant to challenge their own longstanding notions about Iraq and its weapons programs. All nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed onto this document without a single dissent, a rarity for any such report in Washington, especially during an election year.

After the release of the report, Intelligence Committee, Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said they doubted that the Senate would have authorized the president to go to war if senators had been given accurate information regarding Iraq's programs on weapons of mass destruction.

"I doubt if the votes would have been there," Roberts said. Rockefeller asserted, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war, in 75 votes, if we knew what we know now."

Roberts' spokeswoman, Sarah Little, said the second phase of the committee's investigation would also examine how pre-war intelligence focused on the fact that intelligence analysts -- while sounding alarms that a humanitarian crisis that might follow the war - failed to predict the insurgency that would arise after the war.

Little says that it was undecided whether the committee would produce a classified report, a declassified one that could ultimately be made public, or hold hearings.

When the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee was made public, Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials cited it as proof that the administration acted in good faith on Iraq and relied on intelligence from the CIA and others that it did not know was flawed.

But some congressional sources say that had the committee received all the documents it requested from the White House the spotlight could have shifted to the heavy advocacy by Cheney's office to go to war. Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.

In advocating war with Iraq, Libby was known for dismissing those within the bureaucracy who opposed him, whether at the CIA, State Department, or other agencies. Supporters say that even if Libby is charged by the grand jury in the CIA leak case, he waged less a personal campaign against Wilson and Plame than one that reflected a personal antipathy toward critics in general.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Powell as Secretary of State, charged in a recent speech that there was a "cabal between Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense [Donald L.] Rumsfeld on critical decisions that the bureaucracy did not know was being made."

In interagency meetings in preparation for Powell's U.N. address, Wilkerson, Powell, and senior CIA officials argued that evidence Libby wanted to include as part of Powell's presentation was exaggerated or unreliable. Cheney, too, became involved in those discussions, sources said, when he believed that Powell and others were not taking Libby's suggestions seriously.

Wilkerson has said that he ordered "whole reams of paper" of intelligence information excluded from Libby's draft of Powell's speech. Another official recalled that Libby was pushing so hard to include certain intelligence information in the speech that Libby lobbied Powell for last minute changes in a phone call to Powell's suite at the Waldorf Astoria hotel the night before the speech. Libby's suggestions were dismissed by Powell and his staff.

John E. McLaughlin, then-deputy director of the CIA, has testified to Congress that "much of our time in the run-up to the speech was spent taking out material... that we and the secretary's staff judged to have been unreliable."

The passion that Libby brought to his cause is perhaps further illustrated by a recent Los Angeles Times report that in April 2004, months after Fitzgerald's leak investigation was underway, Libby ordered "a meticulous catalog of Wilson's claims and public statements going back to early 2003" because Libby was "consumed by passages that he believed were inaccurate or unfair" to him.

The newspaper reported that the "intensity with which Libby reacted to Wilson had many senior White House staffers puzzled, and few agreed with his counterattack plan, or its rationale."

A former administration official said that "this might have been about politics on some level, but it is also personal. [Libby] feels that his honor has been questioned, and his instinct is to strike back."

Now, as Libby battles back against possible charges by a special prosecutor, he might be seeking vindication on an entirely new level.