i am gritting my teeth until noon tomorrow.

Wow! That has been my exact reasoning for years: a pardon completely removes any defense against testifying. It is immunity squared. It is really a disaster for anyone who receives it who might wish to protect their reputation or their boss.

And the power of a president to revoke an "unaccepted" pardon puts the quash on a broad pardon. People would have to step up, by name and accept it, and there would still be a question of if the pardon was meant for them.

classified pardons. What else would you expect?

Y'all are reaching for esoteric explanations.

With the possible reasoning he's not pardoning Scooter as some sort of payback to Uncle Fester, the answer is otherwise simple.

George W. Bush is a USER. Always has been. He's just not using alcohol and cocaine now.

Every President, tis true, uses people in some way or another. Nobody's down it as blatantly or crudely as Shrub has, though.

Also, Hilz, lack of a pardon does not block civil actions from going forward, whether against Bush himself or an unpardoned minion.

It's a legacy thing. Bush's whole meta message has always revolved around the notion that he's dumb as fuck, but he's a salt-of-the-earth, no-nonsense, honest, hard nosed guy, who won't take no shit from nobody -- not terrorists, not criminals, nobody. He has no policy legacy, so he's roped in to preserving that no-nonsense image as much as possible. Pardoning the backshooting border cops plays into that image (they were shooting dirty, drug dealing Mexicans; Bush would have done the same thing); pardoning white collar criminals who were members of your own administration -- that doesn't fly. It isn't what someone like idealized Bush -- dumb as fuck, but always trying to do the right thing, even when it's hard -- would do.

This does put Obama, and the Justice Department, in an interesting position. My guess is, if Bush and Obama don't have a deal in place already, he's taking a calculated risk on Obama's aversion to conflict. I will also guess that it's one of the few calculated risks Bush has taken in his entire life that will pan out. The entire thing is really a no-brainer for Bush. One, he had little choice in the matter given his image and overall position; and two, Obama is just the kind of guy Bush would want in office who will sit on all this and let it die, much like Bush himself has, albeit for different reasons.

Don't discount the simplest explanation - i.e., W is a pr*ck. Liberals have always assumed he's just one to liberals, but the reality is he's one to everyone because no one else matters . . .

MG - "Obama's aversion to conflict."

VERY good insight, sir or madam.

Mike, that's what I was getting at above when I said he's a "user."

Pardons have a pretty good track record of shutting down investigations, so I'm not buying the 5th amendment explanation.

I wonder if Georgie snickered at Scooter like he snickered at Karla Faye Tucker. "Whoops! Tough luck, Scooter old buddy! You probably should have taken that deal from Fitz. Damn. Get me another one of these, will ya? And leave the f*cking vermouth out next time!"

However, there's just enough time left for Bush and Cheney to pardon themselves. Just as a precaution.

Of course, they would never do such a thing.

I'd be interested to know if, legally, he could write up pre-emptive pardons for himself, Cheney, Gonzo, etc., and keep them secret until they are needed. Under cloak of "national security," I'll bet he could.

Can anyone enlighten us on this question?

Who would have thought Lou Dobbs had that much clout with Shrub?

To pardon is to forgive. To forgive is to admit wrongdoing. Not the Bush's style.