The July 3 New York Times editorial on the Scooter Libby commutation contained a concluding paragraph that should have been beneath the Times. The paper said:

“Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.”

In other words, Bush kept Libby out of prison to silence him.

Bush’s statement did not read to me “like a man worried.” But that is neither here nor there. The editorial’s speculation about Bush’s motive is not backed by any evidence the Times cited. It is sheer conjecture. Worse, it suggests by innuendo that the president may have acted to protect himself.

I was warned against that kind of editorial writing years ago by an editor who said attack what people say and do, not what you think is their motive, which is unknowable.

Times editorials are notable for the reporting that goes into them. It’s evident that the Times makes strenuous efforts to express opinions based on factual evidence. But the Times editorial page also has a tendency to slip on occasion and to attribute motives for actions for which it either has no evidence or fails to offer any.

The Times has been an outspoken critic of Bush and his administration in editorials that have been hard-hitting and effective. In the commutation editorial, however, the Times stepped over the line into unfair commentary.

My guess is that the uncharacteristic Times insinuation about Bush was a product of its rush to judgment. The White House’s commutation statement was issued late on the afternoon of July 2. The editorial had to have been written and edited quickly with little time for reporting and reflection. The Washington Post’s editorial on the commutation that also ran July 3 likewise must have been hurried into print.

Neither editorial cited the highly pertinent case of Victor A. Rita, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court June 21. The Libby and Rita cases virtually were peas in a pod; both defendants were convicted of similar charges and both disputed prison sentences by judges who relied on federal sentencing guidelines. Rita was sentenced to 33 months under the guidelines, Libby to 30 months. The Supreme Court ruled in Rita’s case that, when an appellate court presumes that a sentence under the guidelines is reasonable, as the Fourth Circuit did in Rita’s case, that presumption is deemed to be valid.

Just a couple of weeks later, however, Bush declared that an even shorter prison sentence under the guidelines was “excessive,” and he erased it. On July 4, the Times ran a front-page follow-up news story about the legal community’s critical reaction to Bush’s reasoning. In that story, the Rita decision figured prominently. By making no mention of the relevant Rita case in their editorials, the Times and Post editorial pages missed an opportunity to enlighten readers and to strengthen their commentary. It looks very much as though, on July 2, both papers put haste ahead of doing their homework.

Spiro Agnew in his day had a lot of unwarranted things to say about the press, but his attack on “instant analysis” was on target. The press cannot sit on news. But it does not have to editorialize about it on the same day the news is reported. Readers do not wait breathlessly for pundits to tell them what they think of the latest happening. The press and readers alike would be better off with less instant analysis.