Today President Bush said this regarding Scooter Libby's conviction:

I thought that the jury verdict should stand. I felt the punishment was severe, so I made a decision that would commute his sentence, but leave in place a serious fine and probation. . . I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand.

Yet he is leaving the door open for a future pardon:

As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out.

Are these statements consistent? If Mr. Bush truly thinks the jury's verdict should stand, why is he considering undoing it with a pardon?

On a related note, Keith Olbermann addressed this issue tonight in a Special Comment:

I don't consider Bush's commutation of Libby's prison to be the low point of his presidency, and thus don't see this to be the tipping point for the administration. But Olbermann passionately makes several compelling points on the grave nature of this decision.