Here's an awful thought: Given that Miers withdrew from consideration as a Supreme Court Justice today, do you suppose Fitzgerald will sit on any indictments until tomorrow, to make sure he doesn't have to share the spotlight?

er, why is that awful? this is politics, right? it's all about perception these days as the spectacle of politics displaces the urgent need for creative solutions to a host of serious problems that need urgent attention.

I think it would be awful if someone's ego would drive that person to manipulate the American public, generally. I know it happens daily (even minute-by-minute) in Washington, but I still don't like it.

You actually just stated that you don't like the entire political system! LOL. But I'm afraid that's just the way it is these days.

As I wrote above, there are many serious issues facing not only the USA but all countries that are simply being ignored or downgraded.

I tend to think that the major political parties largely ignore these issues for two main reasons; the first is that they aren't taking the issues seriously because they have no ideas as to how to resolve them, therefore dodge and fudge is the strategy; the second is that most parties are now so strongly,so rigidly dogmatic that the solutions are actually against policy and therefore to be opposed.

That is the sad current state of things, doublespeak and bullshit rules the day. I wonder what George Orwell would have thought?

Alienboy, you're right. I don't like the entire political system. Sadly, it's the only one we have, and any other system would eventually devolve just as this one has.

Misplaced priorities rule Washington, as well as pretty much everywhere else. Sigh.

>> Lying to the American people - which it is possible Cheney has done while not under oath - isn't illegal

You can still have obstruction of justice without being under oath.

Misplaced priorities rule Washington, as well as pretty much everywhere else.

Which is why the lie is always 'worse' than the original 'crime/sin' in the eyes of the public. Most of us don't have the legal background or understanding to be able to concretely assert LAWS were BROKEN in this case or the Whitewater bit (Watergate was easier, as Phillip notes) but we all understand lying. We all understand lying under oath. In short, we all understand what "is" is. If Rove or Libby lied under oath... this story gets legs. The fact that an undercover CIA agent might have been outed; outed for political reasons no less will be lost in the feeding frenzy.

There are very few of us who remember the particulars of the Whitewater land deal. We do remember cigars, semen-stained dresses, blowjobs, and new definitions of "is" and "sexual relations."

When/if this thing explodes, I just hope my beret still fits.

I studied the Nixon Administration in school and it is just uncanny how similar the W admin is to that of Richard Nixon. Riding a horse of purity to power, and then falling in flames, both surrounded by cronies with nifty nicknames that become household references. Like any President or not are ours until they leave, but it is a shame how deep and how much scandal surrounds the current lot.

I think that the Fitzgerald report was delayed becuse of the White Sox. Baseball once again permeates the American (US) culture. C'mon guys, give him a break, he's from Chicago.

The W. Post was saying today that Fitzgerald spent yesterday presenting his summary to the grand jury. Cutting it kinda close, IMO, since tomorrow their mandate runs out - but lord knows I'm no expert on grand juries; maybe they don't need the same amount of time to come up with an indictment? Anyone here ever been on a grand jury?

You are right about lying, DJR. Outing a CIA officer can seriously jeopordize their lives let alone their livlihoods, but few will remember or care.

Another reason the "lie" is poignant in the current case has to do with fact that lies may be the reason 2000 of our own have returned home in boxes.

Oh, someone is getting indicted. It has to happen.

Let's try to take politics out of this for a second. If Kenneth Starr had spent 4 years and $40 million only to come out and say, "Hey, he's clean. Go on about your business" there would have been hell to pay. He damn well better come back after all that recommending impeachment whether or not impeachment is appropriate.

Similar thing here. If Fitzgerald spent two years and $___ million investigating someone better be indicted whether or not indictment is appropriate.

I know these two cases are very different and I will get smacked from both the left and the right for making the comparison (truly, gents I am in the middle now). I just think beyond the politics there are career concerns and 'realities' that just are. It seems to me the name of the game in each of these cases is to keep investigating until you find a reason to indict/ impeach.

Fitzgerald's original mandate was for the Plame outing by itself; at some point he got further authorization to investigate perjury & obstruction, so obviously at some point he felt he had some good indications someone was lying or stonewalling. I don't think anyone goes fishing for that without some basis for doing so. The CIA is said to be watching this like a hawk, & will file their own case/charges if they don't like the charges Fitzgerald comes up with - or the indictees. I'm wondering if Novak is one of them; he certainly should be, simply for publishing the information. He's certainly been keeping a very, very low profile the last year or so. Guess we'll find out tomorrow?

Well, these investigations always have SOME basis. I think one problem with the system (and there are plenty of them) is that it doesn't seem OK to come back with an answer of "All Clear." It appears that the purpose of an investigation in these situations is to determine who gets indicted/impeached rather than to gather the facts or (and how naive will this sound) find the truth.

Maybe Rove and Libby deserve to be indicted, tried, and convicted. I am not saying they don't. I don't know. It just seems like Fitzgerald has to try, period. And I think it cuts this way regardless of partisan affiliation.

By the way, nice job again fellas.

EB, just one thing: from where I am sitting, I would be shocked if this actually leads us back to a discussion of Iraq or pre-war intelligence. Something tells me the indictments will not be for the leak but rather 'obstruction' or some such thing. It will be a black eye for the administration but I don't know that Democrats will be able to bring this back around to Iraq. Just my thought.

Right now I'm more interested in seeing if Valerie Plame or anyone at the CIA is being punished. That may sound strange to everyone. But let me explain. In the midst of all of this Karl RoveValerie Plame controversy I have heard Valerie Plame described as working in "WMD counter-proliferation". That's not entirely true however. She and her coworkers were also engaged in spying on Americans inside America. I know. She called me in spring of 2003 pretending to be with Brewster-Jennings. Following that I got a call from "Gail Heights" at University Services trying to get information. As many of you may remember, Gail Heights was the alias used by Gao Zhan the Chinese scholar who was convicted of exporting microprocessors to Communist China. This was just one of many attempts by Valerie Plame and her colleagues to get inside my life which started back in 1996 after I applied for a job at the CIA. (And to my knowledge I don't have ANY nuclear weapons or anthrax at my house so she certainly wasn't pursuing WMD when she was spying on me.)
For a lot more information, see my website at:
http://www.tomchristianonline.com/

Tom Christian
Weston, FL

DJR -- I think this case has already sparked off a reexamination of the lead-up to the Iraq War, as we are doing right here. There was a discussion on Hardball tonight that very much mirrors the pattern of this conversation.

Tom -- Why would Valerie Plame call you, under guise or not?

About Fitzgerald possibly waiting for political reasons: I doubt that he would do this. I believe he's dotting every single I and crossing every single T, working down to the wire to make sure he gets this thing nailed, because of the enormous and intense scrutiny that will come.

Think of it this way: wouldn't you be careful if you were about to come under the direct spotlight of the White House, Congress, media (MSN, partisan pubs, blogosphere, etc.), and the American and worldwide public?

I would!

Good post - you made it to the front page of Google News

excellent job again! Can we get a screen shot of the Google News front page?

Not currently - but mentioned here

EB, I watched Larry King Live last night (still don't know why- oh, it was hafltime of the Virgina Tech/BC game). Chris Dodd kept trying to bring it back to Niger and Iraq, etc. At that point Bob Woodward (Bob Woodward of all people) told Dodd that Republicans AND Democrats signed off on that report (he even said he had a copy of it in his pocket if the senator wanted to challenge him on it). Dodd wanted to keep bringing it back to Iraq, the rest of the panel seemed to not take it that direction.

Representative? No, of course not. However I don't think it will be easy to tie this back into Iraq in a politically meaningful way. It's one thing for a bunch of DC insiders and junkies like us watching political talk shows to hear this argument made. I think Phillip is probably correct about the 'typical' Americans out there. This story won't have relevance until there is an indictment (which should happen today). And when that happens, it will be about the lies and not Iraq.

I also think Democrats will want to be careful how far they push this. A lot of them believed the pre-war intelligence. The Clintons, for instance, both believed Saddam was a threat.

Libby was indicted, so we'll see if this turns into anything.

Oh I think it has now turned into something. Now we'll see what that something is.

To respond to both of your comments, DJR, I think things are just beginning. Rove is still under investigation, and the media focus will only intensify now that the Vice President's top aide (!!!) has been indicted.

The White House will try desperately to "turn the page" -- and the Miers withdrawal was likely part of that -- and we'll see if that works.

In any event, the Bush administration is retreating on multiple fronts after four plus years of drubbing everyone and everything that stood in its way.

Let's see: let's tote up the Bush admin Hall of Shame, thus far, shall we? Abramoff, DeLay, Ellis, Frist, Libby, Safavian ... who else? I know I've missed some.

The interesting thing is, that Libby wasn't even on the horizon (as far as the MSM & public were concerned) until the last minute, so to speak. Now, Libby's notes stated that he got his info on Plame from Cheney, which certainly implicates Cheney as the actual source of the info, if not the actual leaker. Mmmm ... and the trail of slimie leads right up into the W.H. ... dare we speculate, right into the Oval Office itself? Sic semper tyrannis.

Nancy -- Once again, we're really trying to keep things civil here, and throughout the political section really.

DeLay and Frist are not part of the Bush administration, but of course they share the same party.

With what we know at present, I don't think Cheney can be charged as a leaker... but the continuing investigation into a possible conspiracy (Libby was charged with "conspiring to obstruct justice") could possibly end up tying in the Vice President.

I WAS civil; I used no bad language. Is it now politically incorrect to review how many republicans have been indicted or arrested for various offenses? If they can't stand the heat, maybe they shouldn't commit the crimes?

Nancy, there was no bad language. Trail of slime comes close... but I was jumping the gun a little, you're right.

In the interests of fairness, Eric, I would have been just as acerbic on Dems, & I have been, but the only one I can think of immediately who has run afoul of the law is Sandy Burger. & I consider him a slimebag, too. So they're equal opportunity slimebags. That's only fair. Thanks.

I really must agree with Nancy and I believe her description is generous. The current hall of shame is a national embarrassment, and unnecessarily lowers our esteem in the rest of the world. This nation should not be a model for corruption! How can we take any kind of moral stand with this morass that is about us!
I would like to read comments regarding the recent oil company profit declarations. Seems that in the "blind trust" department, at least the President and Mr. Cheney has more transparent instruments, as the quarterly profits are declared on the evening news, than as compared to Mr. Frist.

Oil profits could easily make for an entirely new post or three.

(Hint!)

There already is a good one: "Exxon, Shell post record profits". Check out the listings of current blogs on this website.

Feel free to post the (clickable) link here, Nancy -- as you can see we have lots and lots of stories being posted everyday.

And thanks!

Indeed, oil company profits seem to underscore the fact that while markets may be efficient, they aren't so efficient in a timely matter -- or rather that they're efficiently separating us from our money!

By the way, listening to the press conference today, I was amused to note that one reporter asked about my first question today: "Did the withdrawal of Harriet Miers yesterday have anything to do with the timing of the indictment today?" (paraphrased)

Fitzgerald said no.

Honestly, I rather got the impression that Fitzgerald wanted more from the grand jury, but didn't get it. Just an impression.

Phillip -- The more I think about it and listen to clips from the press conference, the more I'm convinced that we're seeing the beginning of a process, and not the end of it. That's not to say there's going to be indictment after indictment, but this is a guy who is absolutely hard-wired to get at the truth. And I think he's really pissed off that Libby lied and obstructed the investigation.

I think it obvious that many press sources are *hoping* it's the beginning a full-court press on the invasion of Iraq in general, but I don't think it will gain ground outside the press. Again, too many people on both sides of the aisle are involved.

Phillip, what Democrats are involved in the outing of a CIA agent and possibly misusing documents and information in the lead-up to war?

I think this is way way more than a "press story."

Interesting we mention Sandy Berger on this thread. Unlawfully removing classified documents? There is a story that slipped through the cracks. It's also ancient history, so I am going to stop banging those drums.

I remember back to the first week when Drudge broke the Lewinsky story (or helped break it) and all of the DC-insiders were hyperventilating about how this administration might not last through the week. I remember that clearly- I think it was Sam Donaldson who might have said it. Anyway, the insider crowd got all in a tizzy and Clinton managed to navigate through an impeachment and trial in the Senate. People actually went to jail in the White Water scandal. Poor Webb Hubbell was in some kind of trouble every 12 minutes. Somehow, those scandals and the incarceration of the Clinton confidants didn't land on the Clintons. Should they have? I don't know. But they didn't and a lot of insiders were sure they would.

Iran-Contra before that. DC reporters and insiders have a very different cadence than the rest of the country. Sometimes these things catch fire but they often don't.

DJR -- You're right on in saying that no one really knows how all of this is going to play out. That's why I wrote here (I think) that the White House reaction in trying to start with a clean slate and teh mood of Washington, the media, and the public in allowing them to do that will be very very interesting.

The White House has a large number of built in advantages in changing the story, of course. The new Supreme Court nomination will be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if a super right wing conservative with top credentials gets picked so the mood gets changed to Repubs vs. Dems again. From a pure politics point of view, this would have been a smart move on the first go round with Miers.

EB, I simply meant that many in the press seem to be the ones linking this story with Iraq specifically, which many Democrats aren't going to want to do.

Ah, I see. I disagree though -- I think there will be many who will link them, including those who were against the war all along like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold (a pres. nomination hopeful, some say), etc.

It *is* up in the air as to whether that argument will stick.

I think it has stuck already -- particularly because things aren't going all that well over there -- and it will penetrate the conversation more over time.

Almost all of the DNC's most likely candidates for 2008 voted in favor of invading Iraq. Howard Dean runs the risk of alienating the leaders of his party if he pushes the issue.

They'll rely on certain quarters of the press to do the digging, I'm pretty sure of it.

Based upon your thoughts, Phillip, I'll certainly be keeping a close eye on Clinton / Bayh / Kerry / Edwards / Richardson, etc.

For the last few months up until now, the Dems have been in the very unusual position (for them) of sitting back and watching an unfocused, besieged administration spin itself out of control.

Libby's indictment and Miers's withdrawal ended a phase. The next that comes will be fascinating to any student of politics and anyone interested in what's going on in the country.

The epistolary method employed in this post makes it enjoyable to read. This is intelligent discourse. Wonderful!

Thinking about all that has happened this week, it seems a given that Mr. Cheney knew what was happening; perhaps good old Dick even started by playing telephone. So it went from Dick to Scooter to Jane and Spot and then on to...

If Cheney didn't know, then he's not the Darth Sidious I think him to be, yet that still doesn't stop W from being Anakin; but wait, his descent into a Mustafar-like hell awaits. I apologize to those who are not "Star Wars" fans.

Thanks Victor! It's like a good old fashioned gothic novel... or something.

If we assume that Libby is guilty of at least some of that which he is accused, the question then becomes: was he a one-man band, or were there others involved in a systematic effort to destroy opponents to the administration's war policies?