(graphics via Reuters)
Wow, this is wonderful news. Bill Clinton helped our two journalists to get out of North Korea.

South Korea – North Korean leader Kim Jong Il issued a "special pardon" freeing two jailed American journalists after talks with former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korea's official news agency announced Wednesday.

Clinton, who arrived in North Korea Tuesday on an unannounced visit, met with the reclusive and ailing Kim for talks described by Pyongyang as "exhaustive." It was Kim's first meeting with a prominent Western figure since his reported stroke nearly a year ago.

The release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were arrested March 17 near the China-North Korea border, was a sign of North Korea's "humanitarian and peace-loving policy," the Korean Central News Agency reported.

State media said Clinton apologized on behalf of the women and relayed President Barack Obama's gratitude. The report said the visit would "contribute to deepening the understanding" between North Korea and the U.S.

I was listening to the Villagers today on TV talk like Clinton had an agenda opposite President Obama. This was incredibly swift. Good for him. I guess speaking with people that don't like us isn't a bad strategy after all, Mr. Kristol. I'm sure Laura Ling and Euna Lee would agree.

UPDATE: Poor John Bolton, the sad sack neocon didn't think it was a good idea either.

The point to be made on the Clinton visit is that the knee-jerk impulse for negotiations above all inevitably brings more costs than its advocates foresee. Negotiating from a position of strength, where the benefits to American interests will exceed the costs, is one thing. Negotiating merely for the sake of it, in the face of palpable recent failures, is something else indeed.

What an idiot. And here is still whining on FOX News:

BOLTON: But I worry that the outcome is a lot better for North Korea than for the United States. I mean this is a classic case of rewarding bad behavior, the seizure of these two basically innocent Americans. Obviously all of us want to get them out but we want it done in a way that doesn’t increase the risks in the future for other Americans seized by North Korea, seized by Iran, seized by other despotic regimes and then turned into pawns to get senior officials like former presidents to come and legitimize the regime in order to get them out.

As my friend Jon Perr said:

Jeez, it’s not like Obama sent Clinton there with a cake, a Bible and U.S. weapons, like Ronald Reagan…

Politico has a great article today which reviews the ten pardons President Bush is most likely to make between today and tomorrow. I'd say Scooter Libby is a sure bet, although my favorite candidate has got to be Alberto Gonzalez.

Politico:

3. Pardon Prospect: Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Status: A special prosecutor based in Connecticut, Nora Dannehy, has been assigned to review whether Gonzales misled Congress or otherwise interfered with inquiries into the firings of U.S. attorneys. He’s also being investigated for allegedly preparing false after the fact notes of 2004 congressional briefing about warrantless surveillance. Gonzales has denied wrongdoing, but lacks a solid job and could still run up big legal bills trying to ward off a prosecution.

Pros: Gonzales a longtime loyal Bush aide; arguably punished by lack of significant employment since resigning under pressure in 2007

Cons: Pardon could be seen as self-serving since it was Bush who reportedly asked Gonzales to memorialize 2004 Congressional meeting; will prompt charges of cronyism.

Politico Odds: 1 to 1.

A tale of two moral compasses. The NY Times issued an editorial exhorting Bush to not "abuse" the pardon privilege:

With the Bush administration drawing to a close, it is presidential pardon season. Presidents have become increasingly shameless about issuing pardons to insulate political cronies from prosecution, even to protect themselves. We hope President Bush will not abuse the pardon power by putting his appointees, political supporters or friends above the law.

The Constitution gives the president sweeping authority to grant pardons. The founders intended for presidents to use this power as an “act of grace” or to promote the public welfare. It was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people close to the president who stretched, bent or broke the law.

A nice, if a bit naive, sentiment. The editorial goes on to point out how past presidents have abused the privilege, so it's not without precedent to have Bush issue pardons to whom he wishes to repay for their political loyalty (Hi, Scooter!).

But it is svengaliesque William Kristol whose advice will much more likely be heeded by his PNAC buddies and disciples in the Executive Branch. He argues in his Weekly Standard that the right thing for Bush to do is to pardon any and all foot soldiers in his War on Terror™:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

Unbelievable. This goes beyond immorality and straight into a complete lack of humanity. And let me for the record reiterate that Bill "Brave with other people's kids" Kristol has NEVER been right. Not once. Not when he cheerleaded the Iraq invasion and lied about the reasons. Not when he cheerleaded Sarah Palin and led the campaign to get her on the GOP ticket. Not once in his weekly appearances on Pravda, er...FoxNews has he ever given even the slightest semblance of being right. And now he goes against his employers at the NY Times (Jeez, what does it take to fire a bloodthirsty, warmongering amoral Republican flack? Obviously as much as it does in the US Senate) to suggest that those who have violated every principle that was supposed to be the American dream should get the farkin' Medal of Honor?

And sadly, the Villagers will look to this and not blink an eye.