I suspect that this would have been an outright pardon, except that there are some limitations on pardons that could have landed Bush, Libby and Cheney in even more hot water.
Bush claims "to respect the jury's verdict" in this case, but that Libby was being punished to harshly. (Odd, considering the media reports suggest that Libby's sentence was well within normal guidelines for such an offense)
The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic.
Why yes, there is a certain air of Marie Antoinette in Bush's petulant actions. To my eye, it smacks of complicity in Libby's actions within the White House leadership - the very people that because of their position and responsibilities should be held to a much higher standard, not a lesser standard.
Of course, ever since day one, the Bush/Cheney administration has been all over protecting their own - to the extent of refusing to testify at legislative inquiry unless they are allowed to skip taking an oath. Now we see a president step forward and rescue one of his own from the horror of being imprisoned - even when all of their other attempts to cover up and subvert have failed.
In this case, I'm not at all sure who is aping whom. Is it just the natural behaviour of the current Rethuglican leadership, or have they picked up on the smug arrogance of PMSH and his crowd that continually play the "our standards don't apply to us" game? Either way, Bush's actions are a slap in the face to the American public.