Karl Marx famously remarked that historical events occur twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. In the case of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, Marx had it half-right. Americans are reliving George H.W. Bush's 1992 Iran-Contra pardons, with the same tragic consequences for the rule of law in the United States. All that's missing in 2007 is the convenient death of one of the principal conspirators.
As Digby, Jane Hamsher and Kagro X all noted, President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence harkens back to his father's pardons of Caspar Weinberger and company in the Iran-Contra scandal. Bush the Elder's Christmas Eve pardons to Caspar Weinberger and five others effectively ended any further investigation of the scandal and in essence condoned ongoing obstruction of justice that may well have engulfed the President himself.
I'll leave it to others to summarize the details of Iran-Contra and its bizarre - and illegal - scheme to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for U.S. hostages in Lebanon, the proceeds of which were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But in December 1992, President George H.W. Bush faced a looming legal deadline , with the January 5th trial of former Defense Secretary Weinberger on charges of lying to Congress about the arms for hostages diversion due to start. And like his son almost 15 years later, he moved quickly to use his pardon power to prevent the truth from coming out.
The Same Story Line: Ongoing Obstruction of Justice
The Weinberger and Libby cases not only shared defendants who lied to prevent investigators from unearthing further White House criminality. In each case, the actions of the father and son, while of course legal, constituted ongoing obstruction of justice. Bush pere et fils each effectively blocked further probes into wrong-doing in which they may have been complicit.
Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh reacted angrily to Bush 41's pardons, concluding, "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed." In light of the pardons and Bush's withholding of key sections of his own vice presidential diaries ("I would never do it. I would never surrender such documents and I wouldn't keep such detailed notes"), it is no wonder Walsh's final report concluded, "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete."
The Democratic reaction in 1992 should sound very familiar. The Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell (D-ME), called the pardons a mistake:

"It is not as the President stated today a matter of criminalizing policy differences. If members of the executive branch lie to the Congress, obstruct justice and otherwise break the law, how can policy differences be fairly and legally resolved in a democracy."

Interestingly, then President-elect Bill Clinton used much the same description for his predecessor as he would later offer in 2007 for his successor. Of the man who after Hurricane Katrina would become his disaster relief sidekick, Clinton in December 1992 said:

"I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the Government, you're beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath."

Fast forward 15 years, and Bill Clinton had this to say about the Bush (not the Soprano) family:

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

The Same Defense: "The Criminalization of Politics"
In defending his Iran-Contra pardons, President George H.W. Bush introduced the "criminalization of politics" defense that would come to define the discourse of his son's 21st century amen corner. Much like his son's defenders, Bush 41 sought to recast rampant Republican White House criminality as mere political disagreement:

Mr. Bush said today that the Walsh prosecution reflected "a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences."

The "criminalizing politics" canard has been part of the Republican scandal survival kit ever since. As I wrote of Plamegate and the Libby conviction (in "Politicizing Crime"):

[Kay Bailey] Hutchison, of course, had plenty of company in offering the criminalization of politics canard in the CIA leak case. On October 14, 2005, Bill Kristol complained, "I am worried about what happens to the administration if Rove is indicted," adding, "I think it's the criminalization of politics that's really gotten totally out of hand." In succeeding days, Kristol's Fox News colleagues Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney and Chris Wallace joined the chorus singing from the RNC's criminalization of politics hymnal. On October 24th, Kristol took to the pages of the Weekly Standard to denounce a supposed Democratic strategy of "criminalizing conservatives." When Libby was later convicted, the Wall Street Journal editorial page called for a pardon. The WSJ cited grave dangers if the Libby verdict were to stand: "perhaps the worst precedent would be normalizing the criminalization of policy differences."

Last Tuesday, it was none other than Robert Novak, whose July 14, 2003 column outing the covert CIA operative put him at the heart of PlameGate, who faithfully regurgitated the "no underlying crime" version of the criminalization of politics defense:

"The unique aspect of the Libby conviction was that there was no underlying crime whose prosecution he is accused of obstructing...Republicans have raised millions of dollars for Libby's defense, painting him as the victim of prosecutorial abuse and the criminalization of politics."

The Same People
Despite George W. Bush's reported desire to maintain independence from his father, he Iran-Contra affair and the CIA leak case involved many of the same players from the Bush playbook.
Elliot Abrams, for example, was a former Assistant Secretary of State who pled guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. He had been sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service before Bush 41 offered him a Get Out of Jail Free card. Under George W. Bush, Abrams rose to the number spot on the National Security Council and in December 2006 earned Newsweek's title of "last neocon standing." Ironically, it was Abrams, along with Scooter Libby and Karl Rove that White House press secretary Scott McClellan famously claimed on October 7, 2003 "they were not involved."
Abrams' fellow Iran-Contra felon Admiral John Poindexter also served both Bushes. Poindexter was Ronald Reagan's national security adviser from December 1985 to November 1986, and was convicted on April 7, 1990, on five counts involving charges that he obstructed, conspired to obstruct and made false statements to Congress. His conviction and six month sentence were thrown out by a Federal appeals panel in November 1991, on the ground that Mr. Poindexter's testimony to Congress under immunity was improperly used against him. (Ironically, the appeals court, which also overturned future Fox News fixture Oliver North's conviction, was led by Laurence Silberman. Along with Chuck Robb, Silberman would chair the commission investigating pre-war Iraq intelligence.) In the wake of 9/11, Poindexter of all people was chosen to head up President Bush's controversial - and later cancelled - Total Information Awareness program.
Other figures from the Iran-Contra pardons continue to figure prominently in the White House of Bush 43. C. Boyden Gray, Bush 41's White House counsel, played a major role in the 2000 Florida recount. As a Federalist Society heavyweight, he also is a key voice in Bush administration judicial selections. In making his 1992 pardons, Bush the Elder was counseled by his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft, an ally of James Baker and supporter of the Iraq Study Group, has essentially been persona non grata among the younger President Bush's neoconservative brain-trust.
The Difference: A Convenient Death (or Dead Men Tell No Tales)
The story arcs of the Iran-Contra pardons and the Libby commutations do differ in one important plot device: the timely death of one of the main conspirators. CIA Director William Casey, had supported Poindexter and North's "off-the-books" operation to sell arms to Iran and funnel the proceeds to the Contras in violation of federa law. He also purportedly created the "fall guy" scenario, a plan to create plausible deniability for President Reagan when it came to the diversions.
Alas, the world never got to hear the full story from Casey on the scheme and the imvolvement of President Reagan and Vice President Bush. On December 11, 1986, Casey gave what was termed "flatly incredible" testimony to Congress. The next day he collapsed and required surgery for a cancerous brain tumor. On May 6, 1987 Casey died, and likely with him, the secret of George H.W. Bush's involvement in the arms for hostages conspiracy. As the Congressional Committee Investigating Iran Contra report concluded:

In light of the destruction of material evidence by Poindexter and North and the death of Casey, all of the facts may never be known. The committees connot even be sure whether they heard the whole truth or whether Casey's ''fall guy'' plan was carried out at the public hearings. But enough is clear to demonstrate beyond doubt that fundamental processes of governance were disregarded and the rule of law was subverted.

Much has been written about George W. Bush's powerful need to conduct his presidency out from under his father's looming shadow. (As he confessed to his favorite son Saudi Prince Bandar, George H.W. similarly worries giving junior space.) But when it comes to obstruction of justice and the inappropriate use of presidential pardon power, George W. Bush apparently learned from the master.