So here's a pardon which got exceptional treatment, it's only merit being a $29,000 campaign contribution. Violating every guideline for a pardon, it was revoked only after the press discovered the irregularities. In my humble opinion, the revocation here is an attempt to validate the administrations' political pardons coming along. There will be a firestorm over these.

"Those wondering how it came to pass that President George Bush pardoned a businessman on Tuesday and retracted the pardon on Wednesday might find hints to what went wrong by comparing the language in the pardons that preceded them."

Now, would Bush break his word? Would he keep his word? Or does he regard whatever he says as true, regardless of the facts?

Flashback: "Perino Pledged That Pardons Would Be Granted Through The Pardon Attorney."

Arf