Just when you think this administration couldn't get any worse it just does -- proving the theory that there isn't really any limit to 'bad' but only to good. Bush's pardon of Libby would have been less sad if the only true candidate (Hillary) for president in the upcoming elections wasn't herself completely smeared in horribly wrong presidential pardons.

This story actually brings forth one of my favorite moral fables: Karn vs. Vibhishan.

Karn is an important, powerful and highly regarded character in Mahabharat who chooses loyalty over dharm (righteous path) and Vibhishan is an important, weak and largely forgotten character in Ramayan who chooses dharm over loyalty. Moral of the story is that being disloyal is generally viewed as being more unethical than supporting evil.

Does this apply to Bush? He is Karn? Would we have liked him better had he been Vibhishan?

I think the answer in this case is pretty simple: this does not apply to this tale because both Karn and Vibhishan are not the drivers of evil and Bush is. Their choices are merely to be loyal or to be evil. Bush's choices are different: Whether to be loyal or disloyal. Bush chose loyalty. In some sense this actually makes him a better man than had he let Libby take the hard fall for what is essentially his doing.