Noah's argument is riddled with errors, fallacies, and non sequiturs. Here are the five major ones:

1. Noah says that Libby "probably didn't understand that Plame's identity was a government secret."

In fact, in Libby's indictment, we read that:

Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

This is good evidence that Libby knew that Plame's CIA identity was classified. Furthermore, Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him that the Plame information was "hush hush" and "on the QT."

2. Noah says that the Libby's sentence of 30 months "was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office."

However, federal sentencing guidelines in this case suggest a sentence of 15-21 months only if cross-referencing provisions do not apply, but 30-37 months if cross-referencing does apply. ['Cross-referencing' is the application of the sentencing guideline for the underlying crime that was being investigated (i.e., disclosure of a CIA agent's identity) to the less serious crime (i.e., obstruction of justice) being prosecuted.] The judge ruled that cross-referencing did apply, and gave Libby a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.

3. Noah says that "if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment."

Noah presents no evidence for that statement.

In fact, in the case of Victor Rita, an elderly gentleman who was not a high-ranking government official was prosecuted for crimes similar to but less important than Libby's (perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the sale of machine gun kits) and received a sentence of 33 months.

4. Noah says, "No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office."

On the contrary, no fair-minded person can deny that Clinton was found not guilty of those charges after a trial in the U.S. Senate.

5. Noah asks whether it is "really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than ordinary citizens when presidents get off scot-free?"

This statements combines three fallacies.

a) As noted above, Libby was not treated more harshly than an ordinary citizen.

b) As noted above, Clinton was acquitted of perjury.

c) And finally, Noah equates the alleged perjury in Clinton's case with the four separate crimes that Libby was convicted of: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to the FBI.

To sum up, Noah's case is almost entirely fraudulent. In the case of the Libby commutation, both Noah and Bush are wrong.