Reading through the morning's news, I was surprised to see this editorial in The New York Post calling for a pardon for Scooter Libby. Why would The Post defend a convicted perjurer, you ask? Well, because the case was political. Here's the money quote

So what was this all about?

Scoring points against Bush.

That much is obvious, given prosecutor Fitzgerald's conduct during Libby's trial.

It's not just that his closing argument was blatantly political, charging that Libby's boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, had orchestrated the leak of Plame's name in order to discredit her husband.

So, The New York Post thinks it is wrong to run a political investigation, and that perjuring oneself during a political investigation is not worthy of punishment. Hmmm, perjury, political investigation, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Surely, The Post held similar opinions back then, right? Some money quotes

But this misses the point. Al Gore hasn't turned into Dan Quayle. He's turned into Bill Clinton. On "20/20," he defended his claims last year that it was OK for Clinton to make "misleading statements," i.e., lies, because it was a "partisan" impeachment process. (New York Post, June 18, 1999)

Bill Clinton may truly believe that his acquittal has salvaged his reputation.
But he now stands branded - by a federal judge far removed from the partisan politics of Congress - as a willful, deliberate, contemptuous liar.
That is his shame to bear - and all America's, as well. (New York Post, April 13, 1999)

So basically, The Post thinks the partisan investigation of Bill Clinton that led to a charge of perjury was the shame of the nation, but Scooter Libby ought to be pardoned for far worse offenses. Spare us the explanation, JPod, and just admit to being an outright hypocrite.