NY Times On Armitage - BS, Round II

It's a poor workman who blames his tools, but - "Typepad" has eaten my original and  uncharacteristically insightful post on the latest NY Times attempt to cover the Armitage story.

Bah.  For the Saturday holiday edition Doug Johnston tackles the Armitage story under the "questions have been raised" rubric.  In fact, the front-page headline is "New Questions About Inquiry in C.I.A. Leak", and this is the new question:

An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Fine.  The new story papers over some of the confusion caused by the odd headline in the Neil Lewis story last Wednesday.  The original headline (since changed), "First Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role, Lawyer Says", certainly gave the impression that Armitage had hired a lawyer (although the text was more clear); Saturday, Johnston emphasizes this:

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said.

With all that cooperation, Johnston never addresses another seemingly obvious question - how did Special Counsel Fitzgerald fail to discover that Armitage had leaked to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in June of 2003?  For heavens sake, the AP discovered that the meeting with Woodward was right there on Armitage's appointment calendar.  Was this willful deceit on the part of Armitage, incompetence on the part of Fitzgerald and his investigators, or what?

Neil Lewis at least noted the Woodward angle, burying it in the last two paragraphs; Johnston never does.

For comparison, the WaPo said this:

Three weeks before Armitage spoke to Novak, he made a similar, offhand disclosure of Plame's employment to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, the former colleague added. Armitage disclosed the conversation to Fitzgerald after Woodward reminded him of it in October 2005, and Woodward subsequently gave a deposition about the conversation.

"Of course, I have nothing to say about sources," Woodward said yesterday.

As an aside, I was surprised by this:

Mr. Armitage spoke with Mr. Novak on July 8, 2003, those familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Armitage did not know Mr. Novak, but agreed to meet with the columnist as a favor for a mutual friend, Kenneth M. Duberstein, a White House chief of staff during Ronald Reagan’s administration.

Novak has lauded Armitage repeatedly (but not quoted him, in the examples presented) and Armitage has been part of the Washington scene going back to the Reagan Administration, so the notion that these two don't know each other seems odd.

And some Bonus Trivia - Ken Duberstein's wife is a producer for the Charlie Rose show, which had Armitage as a guest back in June.

GOOD POINT:  From "Ranger":

Interesting how this is phrased in the story:

"He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said."

Was that before or after Woordward made him come forward about their conversation?

Maybe Armitage's full cooperation began in November 2005.  I would still like to know if anyone has asked him whether he spoke with Judy Miller or Andrea Mitchell.  And I am going to recycle my old summary (see MORE) of the Andrea Mitchell situation - people forget (or never realized) just how close to the Wilson/Niger story she was:

...Briefly, in late June she had scoop from State about the misplaced INR dissent (on Saddam's nuclear aspirations) in the NIE; she sat in for Russert and interviewed Joe Wilson on the July 6 'Meet The Press'; on July 8, she told the world that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA "operatives" (a word later used by Novak, to great controversy); on July 20, she had a public spat with Richard Armitage, who was no longer returning her phone calls; and on Sept 26 she broke the news of the CIA criminal referral of the Plame case.

And of course, there was her famous Oct 3, 2003 response that prior to Novak's column it was "widely known" amongst the journalists covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA.  She has since disavowed that.

Put it together, and we have a reporter who was working this story and was almost surely in contact with a guy at State who leaked the Plame news to others.  *OBVIOUSLY* that does not mean Armitage gave it to her, or that she mentioned it to Tim Russert, but it does suggest that Russert may have a reason for his careful denials.

And it suggests hat someone ought to ask both Mr. Armitage and Ms. Mitchell about this.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I see the Times is still clueless about the State Dept memo:

'Mr. Fitzgerald may also point out that Mr. Armitage knew about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. role only because of a memorandum that Mr. Libby had commissioned as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the White House by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.'

Anyway, this morning on NPR I heard Daniel Schorr bemoaning what a huge disappointment the Plame thing was. He said it was supposed to be a big scandal for the neo-cons, but now it turns out to be all due to an assistant to Colin Powell.

Poor old codger.

[Scrol]

Fitzgerald has a thing for politicians. His job as a DOJ criminal conspiracy investigator is to indict bad CIA and FBI agents. For whatever reason(he likes unions, he's a dem, he ....)he passed on doing his job. Tradition no longer exists. The DOJ cannot or will not indict bad CIA and FBI agents; Plame got away with alot and the other intelligence services and terrorists have been emolden to do whatever they like with little chance of being indicted, as long as they work with CIA or FBI. The problem, for most people outside the intelligence community, is that the bad CIA agent gets foreign nationals murdered on 'behalf' of the CIA agent. Terrorists really prefer to do this for politicians, but a bad agent will do fine.

When terrorists murder on your behalf, it's called a criminal conspiracy and needs to be investigated by DOJ. Fitz passed. CIA passed on Aimes until he got over thirty foreign nationals killed by their own people. At CIA this is acceptable and, now, apparently it's the same at DOJ.

The intelligence community originally meant the world's intelligence services. Now, this is supposed to mean the US intelligence community and this is sad because we have lost the ability to work with other intelligence services. This is an old argument and the bad agents might argue that it's okay as long as it's not an American. A criminal conspiracy is just that.

So, we lose here again and US agents and politicians will continue to agree that using a criminal conspiracy to kill foreign nationals is okay. We are losing our ability to work with other intelligence services and that's okay, too, because we are wrong. Terrorists? Why worry, they do a fine job for us. CIA moving to DIA? Why worry, it's, in effect, the end of military intelligence.

The hope was to keep Plame from the top US government officials, use the advisors. She has done irrevocable damage to the US government and the US intelligence community. Her goal was always to leak, the higher up the better; those terrorist just go right to work after 'Vanity Fair.'

[Ranger]

Interesting how this is phrased in the story:

"He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said."

Was that before or after Woordward made him come forward about their conversation?

P.S. I think there is a typo in the initial post:

For heavens sake, the AP discovered that the meeting with Novak was right there on Armitage's appointment calendar.

I think you meant Woodward rather than Novak.

[windansea]

empty wheel has a huge new canoe and is rowing furiously with leaps of logic...new theory is that Tenet is 1x2x6

Denile

[jerry]

It is a fine new post by EW, reviews all the reasons why it ain't over yet (a nice tonic to the pardon talk hereabouts).

I especially liked it as I've long been a booster of a strong role for Tenet in fighting the WH conspiracy to betray Plame.

[clarice]

Posted on the prior thread.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5819

[windansea]

Jerry Jerry Jerry (Cary Grant accent)

You'd be much wiser to abandon the SS Conspiracy or you will be up Plame Creek without a paddle...

do yourself a favor and read Clarice :)

[windansea]

Okay...I'm robbing this from a wheely and selling to the highest bidder

The Nightmare before Fitzmas

[jerry]

I did read Clarice's latest, it's very Clarice-ish of course - a strong vision and opinion, much like Novak actually.

My comment would be that the Armitage/Woodward > Woodward/Libby >> (Wilson) >> Libby/Russert timeline got a little blurred there at the end, but that's a symptom of my conspiratorial bias in the Plame case.

I like that "Secret Agent Plame" song!

[sad]

Jerry

It's easy to find. The article is now featured at Lucianne.

[topsecretk9]

WAIT, how can Tenet be 1x2x6, Jeff just explained to us that the distinction was 'changed" to "WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL" and Mike Allen certainly knows...are the EW's abandoning that now?

[windansea]

WAIT, how can Tenet be 1x2x6,

Jeff is in an undisclosed bunker reviewing all 10,000 of his posts and files trying to come up with a new unified theory

you do know that in the parallel universe up can be down and nuancing allows complete changes in direction right?

[sad]

*******Jeff is in an undisclosed bunker reviewing all 10,000 of his posts and files trying to come up with a new unified theory****

Has anyone ever seen Jeff and Fitz in the same place at the same time?

[Other Tom]

Watching to see the order in which the rats leave this sinking ship is priceless. I don't know which is more fun: seeing the likes of Daniel Schorr, Bob Beckel and the Washington Post give up the ghost, or watching the remaining diehards tie themselves in knots trying to Keep Hope Alive.

Jerry, with your reliance on analysis by EW, you seem to be reluctant to jump. Fine by me; we can just lump you in with Keith Olbermann and Crazy Larry. And by the way: Bush has the power to pardon Libby any time he wants to. He can even do it over the objections of Empty Wheel.

[topsecretk9]

Does anyone know how to check a site traffic even if said site does not have a site meter? Is there a website application thingy?

[sad]

courtesy of Tigerhawk

*****Reporter David Johnston has raised a huge pile of stunningly obvious questions, and does not even have the good graces to tell us whether he can't or won't answer them. At whose behest did Armitage prepare that undelivered resignation letter? Did he do it on his own because he's a stand-up guy, did Powell suggest it, or State Department lawyers? Which State Department "officials" advised that a sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak? Was it Powell, top lawyer Taft, or Armitage's weight-lifting buddies? Were they giving this advice in Armitage's interest -- "you don't want to hurt your reputation" -- or were they making a threat -- "it would be so unfortunate if word got around that you were the criminal"? Given that Armitage went to the "authorities" (Johnston's word) immediately and without benefit of legal advice, why did the State Department care that Armitage's role in the leak might be disclosed? Armitage's leak was obviously non-criminal, and it wasn't as though senior State Department officials were worried that word would get out that they were talking to Bob Woodward. Colin Powell seems hardly to make a move in public life without Bob Woodward there to record his side of the story.******

[sad]

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/09/armitage-did-not-resign-because-huh.html

[Bob]

Talk about whack jobs... they're circling the wagons over on DU

"Actually, I think what happened in Katrina was actually a Bush SUCCESS!

Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 02:14 PM by Jackpine Radical
Everything went very well. A Democratic city in the deep south has been eliminated. The people WERE controlled, in that they were kept away from the Ownership class & dispersed. Sheltering, feeding & other humanitarian gestures were not high on the priority list."

Quick Jerry, they need some adult supervision! Maybe you can sing to them until they fall asleep... they'll like that new DU hit - Secret Agent Plame!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I don't know how many times I've asked this question and never get an answer, so let's try one more time ... how do you pardon someone who has NOT been convicted of a crime? The Constitution guarantees we are innocent until proven guilty and I don't think there is a Presidential Pardon available for convictions by press rather than convictions in a court of law.

Seems to me that all this talk of a Bush pardon for Libby is way premature since Libby has as yet NOT been convicted of any crime. Seems that Bush's options would include firing Fitz and ordering the AG to dismiss all charges, but a pardon seems out of the question until after a trial and conviction.

[Sid]

Couple of thoughts - If someone mentioned this on another thread, I missed it.

Didn't GWB direct all the fed employees to cancel any secrete agreements with the press i.e. confidentiality agreements - such as Woodward says Armitage was holding over him?

Wouldn't the reported discussions between Armitage and his co-workers at State have violated the alleged request by fritz that he was not to discusses his testimony?

Remember fritz assertions that the DOJ could keep tabs on what was going on by reading material that was in the public record. Looks like fritz was refusing to report to his boss every time he demanded silence of the witnesses. Armitage – Novak Who else? (Didn’t Novak state at one time that he was “not allowed” to discuss his testimony – until fritz determined that he couldn’t hang Rove?) Looks like he wanted the secrecy of only the witnesses who had cast doubts on the assumption that the WH was leaking.

[Sid]

Squiggy,

Ford Pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with anything.

[Ranger]

Sara,

Someone can be pardoned for potential crimes connected with specific incidents. That's what Ford did when he pardoned Nixon. There were no formal criminal charges, but to prevent a criminal prosecution, Ford issued a pardon for any crimes that Nixon may have committed.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Standards for Considering Pardon Petitions

In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The [Justice] Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 CFR Section 1.2). In determining whether a particular petitioner should be recommended for a pardon, the following are the principal factors taken into account.

1. Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation. An individual's demonstrated ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement is strong evidence of rehabilitation and worthiness for pardon. The background investigation customarily conducted by the FBI in pardon cases focuses on the petitioner's financial and employment stability, responsibility toward family, reputation in the community, participation in community service, charitable or other meritorious activities and, if applicable, military record. In assessing post-conviction accomplishments, each petitioner's life circumstances are considered in their totality: it may not be appropriate or realistic to expect "extraordinary" post-conviction achievements from individuals who are less fortunately situated in terms of cultural, educational, or economic background.

2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense. When an offense is very serious, (e.g., a violent crime, major drug trafficking, breach of public trust, or white collar fraud involving substantial sums of money), a suitable length of time should have elapsed in order to avoid denigrating the seriousness of the offense or undermining the deterrent effect of the conviction. In the case of a prominent individual or notorious crime, the likely effect of a pardon on law enforcement interests or upon the general public should be taken into account. Victim impact may also be a relevant consideration. When an offense is very old and relatively minor, the equities may weigh more heavily in favor of forgiveness, provided the petitioner is otherwise a suitable candidate for pardon.

3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement. The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication. While the absence of expressions of remorse should not preclude favorable consideration, a petitioner's attempt to minimize or rationalize culpability does not advance the case for pardon. In this regard, statements made in mitigation (e.g., "everybody was doing it," or I didn't realize it was illegal") should be judged in context. Persons seeking a pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice bear a formidable burden of persuasion.

4. Need for Relief. The purpose for which pardon is sought may influence disposition of the petition. A felony conviction may result in a wide variety of legal disabilities under state or federal law, some of which can provide persuasive grounds for recommending a pardon. For example, a specific employment-related need for pardon, such as removal of a bar to licensure or bonding, may make an otherwise marginal case sufficiently compelling to warrant a grant in aid of the individual's continuing rehabilitation. On the other hand, the absence of a specific need should not be held against an otherwise deserving applicant, who may understandably be motivated solely by a strong personal desire for a sign of forgiveness.

5. Official recommendations and reports. The comments and recommendations of concerned and knowledgeable officials, particularly the United States Attorney whose office prosecuted the case and the sentencing judge, are carefully considered. The likely impact of favorable action in the district or nationally, particularly on current law enforcement priorities, will always be relevant to the President's decision. Apart from their significance to the individuals who seek them, pardons can play an important part in defining and furthering the rehabilitative goals of the criminal justice system.

[Sue]

I went over to EW to see what was being said. Facts are ignored to make their new conspiracy work. Armitage told Woodward, something that isn't addressed over there, about Plame on June 12. That is an important fact to leave out, as the NYTs also noted (I believe they left it out on purpose, they would have had to explain that Armitage was silent about being the 1st leaker long before his Novak conversation).

[clarice]

Here's a goodie. http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/the-nyt-on-the-end-of-treason-gate-with-interpolations

[Sid]

Sara,

A DOJ pardon described in your post is a completely diferent animal from a Presidential pardon as described in the U S Constitution.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

It seems the only way a pardon could be considered is if Libby was willing to first plead guilty and then a pardon could follow five years down the road. There are cases where pardons have been refused because the defendant refused to plead guilty. I wouldn't plead guilty to any crime I didn't commit, even if it meant I had to take my chances and get convicted. I just couldn't do it and keep my self respect. I don't think Fitz has a snow balls chance in hell in getting a conviction here, so why would Libby plead guilty?

George Bush needs to put a stop to this witch hunt by firing Fitz and having the DOJ dismiss/drop all charges against Libby.

[Ranger]

Sara,

That is the standard for evaluating Pardon petitions (and even in those guidlines there are a couple of qualifiers such as "In gereral" and "principle factors". That's not the situation here. The president has the power to pardon who ever he want's even if they haven't been charged yet. Now, I imagine that Libby would make your argument, that he doesn't need a pardon because he is innocent and can prove it in court, but a pardon would simply shut down the prosectuation by preventing the court from finding judgement.

Here is the relevent text of Ford's pardon of Nixon:

"As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States...

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."

bold added.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Sid, there are laws governing how pardons work today: "General regulations regarding the submission, consideration and award of pardons are set down in Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1.1-1.10."

[clarice]

Sara, listen to Sid. He's right. The president can issue a pardon or he can fire Fitz and dismiss the case. I vote for the latter because a pardon carries with it some hint of wrongdoing, but frankly, either one works for me as a means of seeing that the injustice stops.

[The Dude]

Great work as usual from Tom, Clarice, et al... Fitz needs to DO TIME. This is not a mistake. He has covered up for hillary with the Muslims. He has covered up for Bill c. in the 911 debacle. What he did here was criminal. He had two letters of authority to conduct the investigation. Someone obstructed Armitige from revealing information. Fitz knew from day one but continued for almost 3 years. He had more than one grand jury which suggested he was overworked at the time. Bush should ORDER AG to condct a full investigation into this entire mess. He should fire Fitz, Armitge, all lawyers who consulted with Armitige who are US employees, etc... There is no "high road" here. bush has to fight back.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The whole idea behind the Nixon pardon was that there was no way Nixon could enjoy due process as things stood. There was no way for him to get a fair trial "for years" as Ford said. Once he left office, there was no way for him to have access to the material he would need to provide a defense, among other reasons.

[clarice]

Thanks, Dude. Could you clarify what you meant whenyou said Fits had two letters of authority?

[kate]

I'm surprised that the Plame investigation is still open. I had thought that after Rove was cleared Fitzgerald would announce the end of his investigation. That fool just can't let go.

I agree with clarice on pardon versus closure of the case. I want the one that causes the left and Fitzgerald the most sting, that is more of a slap in the face.

One thing I've noticed, we haven't been subjected lately to articles about Fitz being the smartest man in the room, his integrity, how wonderful he is.

He totally signed on to Wilson's narrative, the poor abused whistleblower.

[Ranger]

Sara,

If your question is, 'can the president pardon someone who hasn't been convicted' the answer is yes. If you question is, 'would this pardon fall within the normal proceedures', then the answer is no. Just because it doesn't meet the DoJ guidlines does not mean it is not legally valid (Clinton proved that with Marc Rich).

[Sue]

What if, instead of investigating who leaked Valerie Plame's name, Fitz was instead investigating who leaked classified NIE information? Wouldn't that explain why Armitage was not charged with anything?

[topsecretk9]

(Didn’t Novak state at one time that he was “not allowed” to discuss his testimony – until fritz determined that he couldn’t hang Rove?)

Yes, and he was only cut loose AFTER Rove was.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I understand that Ranger, but why would Libby want that type of pardon? It confers guilt on him that would stay with him for the rest of his life. Bush is on the record as saying he would NOT follow the Clinton/Rich model but would follow the guidelines. When there are other avenues open, I don't think Bush is going to go back on his word on the pardon criteria he plans to follow in his administration.

[clarice]

Sara:

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

No standards, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached.__________

No regulations can change this.

[clarice]

Sara, not getting trapped into a long discussion on this, but it is obvious in context that the president was referring to post-conviction pardons, not a pardon like this.

[JM Hanes]

windandsea:

Maybe jerry thinks this is the creek. He's too polite to say it though.

Unlike others we could name on both sides of the stream, jerry doesn't do ad hominems, which is all the more remarkable considering the number & nature of the potshots launched in his direction. He's also got a sense of humor, which is a rare distinction on the left!

And who knows, one of these Friday Nights (Live!), jerry may give Soylent Red a real run for the moeny!

[JM Hanes]

**make that "money" of course**

[Daddy]

I'm sure I'm out of the mainstream on this, but my favorite mean-spirited, self righteous, partisan hatchet man in this whole affair remains Lawrence O'Donnell. His trumpeting of that gnostic list in his coat pocket of the 22 Republican criminals Fitz was going to indict any second now was a thing to behold. Wielding his secret knowledge like an Indulgence from the Pope to carte blanche scream "liar" at his opponents from the MSNBC Pulpit, he displayed a partisan vindictiveness in this Witchhunt I find hard to beat. He's my choice for top Torquemada, and earns the prize for a new high in low.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, I understand the president CAN do it, I just don't think he will or should, for Libby's sake, if not his own. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing that are within the president's power.

[Ranger]

Sara,

I think you're asking one question in the form of a different question. It is clear the president has the power to do this, the question is should he use that power. I can be talked either way. I would save Libby a lot of money and let him get back to his life, but it would always leave the cloud of guilt as you say. I think that if the president did pardon Libby, he should do it in a speech that takes the press to task for how it completely failed to tell the real story on this, and should also initiate some form of formal investigation into Fitz's conduct of the investigation. I doubt any of that will take place though.

[LurkandLearn]

Please forgive the dumb question from the peanut gallery, but am hoping to understand: why is this not Malicious Prosecution and/or Abuse of Process?

[lurker]

It would be better if Fitz will simply drop the case altogether with an explanation that he screwed up than Bush pardoning Libby or firing Fitz. If Bush fired Fitz, the leftwing MSM would be all over Bush.

[kate]

The left could be all over Bush if he pardoned Libby, but they would only highlight their own biased and sloppy reporting.

Bush should welcome this fight. It's one he could win. He's right on all the facts.

[Daddy]

Bush has to be very careful about how he proceeds in concluding this investigation. We all know the MSM is continuing to do their piss-poor job of actually uncovering who said what to whom, and when and where and why. To honestly answer those questions would be to contribute to destroying their own credibility while simultaneously exhonerating an Administration they viscerally loathe. My guess is that they've already got the knives out, and are dying to use their entire assets 24/7 to paint whatever solution (Pardon, etc) that Bush comes up with, as a second conspiracy rivaling the first, in conservative cronyism, illegitimate executive privilage, scoff-lawing etc, that they can continue to spoon feed to a gullible public through their mouthpieces and megaphones. If I were them, that's how I'd try to turn this MSM debacle into Left Wing victory.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I suppose GWB could follow his father's example:

Bush said Weinberger -- who had been scheduled to go on trial in Washington January 5 on charges related to Iran-Contra -- was a "true American patriot," who had served with "distinction" in a series of public positions since the late 1960s.

"I am pardoning him not just out of compassion or to spare a 75-year-old patriot the torment of lengthy and costly legal proceedings, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves for his extraordinary service to our country," Bush said in a proclamation granting executive clemency.

The president also pardoned five other persons who already had pleaded guilty or had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages investigation. They were Elliott Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George, all former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Explaining those pardons, Bush said the "common denominator of their motivation -- whether their actions were right or wrong -- was patriotism." They did not profit or seek to profit from their conduct, Bush said, adding that all five "have already paid a price -- in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families -- grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed."