Libby, but not Rove says NYT.

[John Mace]

So, it looks like Rove is off the hook (at least for now) and it'll just by Libby.

Is this just an "inside the beltway" catfight, or is this going to resonate with the electorate? I just don't see people getting up in arms about this. I did an informal poll of my fairly educated, fairly informed friends yesterday and no one even knew who Libby was. Is this going to blow the lid off Bush's whole rationale for taking us to war? I just don't see it. I think the anti-Bush crowd is suffering from the same myopia that the anti-Clinton crowd suffered from in during the impeachment broo-hah-hah-- that any charges flung at the administration will force the whole country to open its eyes and realize they don't really want Bush/Clinton to sit in the Oval Office.

And no, I'm not trying to equate getting a blow job with taking the country to war. I'm just trying to equate the myopia exhibited by the folks on the more extreme wing of either party.

Comments? (I know this is a futile request, but can we keep this thread focused on the facts of the case, and dispense with the ad hominems against Rove et al?)

Cheney Aide Appears Likely to Be Indicted; Rove Under Scrutiny (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?hp&ex=1130558400&en=2f2eae5de9b925ab&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

[DanBlather]

I was just thinking how much better the world would be if Clinton had caused just one person to be killed and Bush had gotten 2,000 people blown. I bet enlistment would be up as well.

[Sevastopol]

The only people who cared that there were no WMD were Democrats.

The majority looked to Washington to identify a focal point for their malevolence. The President, who is no fool, duly obliged.

When it became undeniable that the ostensible cause for war was unfounded, the response was predictable. Support for Bush increased in the constituency. Such resentment as there was attached to the President having bent to giving reasons to the the liberal left and to the assembled UN.

The absence of any legitmate cause of war was a knockout sucker punch by the nation's right wing. The values dear to the left and UN internationlists were squashed flat and atomised.

The less cause for war and the greater the deceit practiced on the left, the stronger the right will hew to its leader, who has served them well.

[Merijeek]

...but Rove isn't safe and is still under investigation.

If the grand jury is done today how is Rove still in danger?

-Joe

[E-Sabbath]

I am looking at Sevastapol's words, but... I don't see any sense in them. Can someone explain them?

[Frank]

Is this just an "inside the beltway" catfight, or is this going to resonate with the electorate?
Seems to be resonating some. I can't find the data for this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/cia.leak/), but the article states that:
Thirty-nine percent said some administration officials acted illegally in the matter, in which the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, was revealed.

The same percentage of respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said administration officials acted unethically, but did nothing illegal.
That's 78% that believe some administration officials acted badly. There's a wide awareness of this across the country. I definitely do not believe it will stay inside the beltway.

I suspect your friends aren't as informed as you think they are.

[squeegee]

Several sites are saying Fitz will file documents at 11am ET (keep checking his web site (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/)), and will have a press conference at 1pm Eastern.

[Cisco]

There's a wide awareness of this across the country.
Maybe they explained the situation to them before asking the poll questions? I just don't see this wide awareness. Like John Mace, I've been taking informal polls of friends, family, co-workers, and people I meet who are interested in politics, except I've been doing it pretty consistently since around June of this year. Outside of my brother, I've yet to talk to anybody who has ever heard of this case. The most common response is along the lines of, "Who is Karl Rove?"

[Frank]

Maybe they explained the situation to them before asking the poll questions?
Maybe. Like I said, I couldn't find anything on the poll itself. Gallup wants money.

[John Mace]

I am looking at Sevastapol's words, but... I don't see any sense in them. Can someone explain them?

I had the exact same experience.

[SteveG1]

Ditto.

[Plynck]

Several sites are saying Fitz will file documents at 11am ET (keep checking his web site (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/)), and will have a press conference at 1pm Eastern.Looks like it will now be held at 2PM, according to this (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/press_advisory_1028.pdf).

In the true spirit of a Great Debate, I will withhold any opinions or speculations until hearing the proceedings of the Press Conference. Move this to the Pit, however, and all bets are off...

[BobLibDem]

People don't give a rat's rear about Libby. A few more care about Rove but he wasn't in elective office anyway. The real meat is Dick Cheney. If there is a new grand jury to investigate the knowing use of lies to justify a war, and they find cause to indict Cheney, then that will be newsworthy. Libby by himself means nothing.

My hope is that this is but Act I in the play Fall of the House of Bush.

[John Mace]

People don't give a rat's rear about Libby. A few more care about Rove but he wasn't in elective office anyway. The real meat is Dick Cheney. If there is a new grand jury to investigate the knowing use of lies to justify a war, and they find cause to indict Cheney, then that will be newsworthy. Libby by himself means nothing.

I'm glad to see you recognize that. But where do you get the idea that a grand jury is going to investigate "lies to justify a war"? I hope you don't think that was what the original grand jury was investigating...

BTW, Libby resigned.

[BobLibDem]

I'm glad to see you recognize that. But where do you get the idea that a grand jury is going to investigate "lies to justify a war"? I hope you don't think that was what the original grand jury was investigating...

BTW, Libby resigned.

We shall see. Rumors had been rampant about the investigation continuing into the matter of why they wanted retribution on Wilson in the first place- his exposing the African uranium story as false. I hope they continue along that vein.

[NurseCarmen]

Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show.

[squeegee]

indictment (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf) (PDF).

Any lawyers care to pick it apart?

[scotandrsn]

I had little or no awareness of Libby before last week, but one wouldhave to have one's head under a rock not to have at least heard his name on the news in the last week.

On, of all shows, The Colbert Report, Lesley Stahl (who was in journalism back in the 1970s) commented that the Watergate Scandal was, in terms of media coverage and public awareness, full of stops and starts and gaps at first. FTR, she didn't say she thought this was another Watergate, she was merely implying that not having wide awareness and deep resonance at this stage could not, in and of itself, be construed as an indication that it wasn't another Watergate.

[The Hamster King]

Is this just an "inside the beltway" catfight, or is this going to resonate with the electorate?

Indictments mean a trial. That means members of the Bush administration being forced to publicly discuss the decision-making process for the Iraq War under oath.

This is just the beginning.

[John Mace]

Indictments mean a trial. That means members of the Bush administration being forced to publicly discuss the decision-making process for the Iraq War under oath.

Nope. The Judge will confine the trial testomony to the charges, and won't let this become a political circus. You heard that here first!

Any "trial" of Bush's decision making about the war, will take place in the press, as it already is. We'll see how much traction that gets.

[BobLibDem]

Indictments mean a trial. That means members of the Bush administration being forced to publicly discuss the decision-making process for the Iraq War under oath.

This is just the beginning.

Or a plea bargain could negate the need for a trial.

All in all, I feel like the kid that got underwear for Christmas instead of the Playstation.

[scotandrsn]

As too the trickier issue of what the hell Sevastopol was talking about:

The only people who cared that there were no WMD were Democrats.

OK, we start off pretty well with a simple declarative sentence. There may differing opinions as to the accuracy of the truth-value Sev has applied to it, but so far, we have clarity.

The majority looked to Washington to identify a focal point for their malevolence. The President, who is no fool, duly obliged..

Unclear as to who "The majority" refers to. The majority of the populace or the Majority of Democrats? I assume Democrats. Details on exactly how the President "obliged" their need for "a focal point for their malevolence", and why his actions, whatever they might have been, were evidence of the notion that he is "no fool", are, to put it kindly, murky at this point.

When it became undeniable that the ostensible cause for war was unfounded, the response was predictable. Support for Bush increased in the constituency..

I'd want a cite for this part, but it would require some clarification on exactly when the unfounded nature of the ostensible cause for war became undeniable. Assuming Sev is correct, one wishes for an explanation as to how this response was predictable.

Such resentment as there was attached to the President having bent to giving reasons to the the liberal left and to the assembled UN..

"Such resentment as there was" on whose part? Bush's constituency, I can only surmise. In that light, the rest seems to imply that the only thing they resented was that he bothered conceding to " the the liberal left and to the assembled UN" by giving the nod to the notion that he needed to justify the war on any grounds whatsover. It's hard to tell at this juncture whether Sevastopol is being facetious or genuinely supportive of such a notion.

The absence of any legitmate cause of war was a knockout sucker punch by the nation's right wing..

This seems to say that starting a war for no particular reason was a positive goal in and of itself, that it was consciously aimed for by the conservatives, and should be seen as some sort of victory of one value system over another. Again, still difficult to tell if this is serious.

The values dear to the left and UN internationlists were squashed flat and atomised..

Just what "values" are being referred to here, other than the notion that it might not be a good idea for many reasons if the biggest military in the world just started attacking on a whim, are not clear. One really hopes at this point that this is a poor, late-night attempt at satire.

The less cause for war and the greater the deceit practiced on the left, the stronger the right will hew to its leader, who has served them well.

Not having spelled out any particular "deceipt" of the left prior to now, Sev's full meaning in this last part is baffling at best. The implication seems to be that what the people of the United States really want is for our country to make war at the drop of a hat on anyone whose looks the (Republican) government doesn't like on a particular day, and that Bush, having done pretty much just that, is thus exemplary in his leadership.

At least, assuming my analysis of the above is accurate with respect to the intent of the post, uncertainty on one point has been banished. Sevastopol, you have got to be joking.

[Homebrew]

Can't wait to see who "Official A" is:

on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke to a senior White House
official (“Official A”) who advised Libby of a conversation Official A had earlier
that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed
as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A
that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife;

Given the timing, it seems "Official A". leaked before Libby did so "Official A" might end up in deeper hot water.

[ElvisL1ves]

Gotta be Cheney, right?

[Sampiro]

So what do you think is in it for Libby to be the Fall Guy? I'm sure it's not just "the goodness of my heart" that he's taking the rap.

[John Mace]

Gotta be Cheney, right?

No, Rove.

[rjung]

Gotta be Cheney, right?
Nah, Cheney's already explicity mentioned, most notably in paragraph #9:
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Angency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

[John Mace]

Indictments mean a trial. That means members of the Bush administration being forced to publicly discuss the decision-making process for the Iraq War under oath.
Nope. The Judge will confine the trial testomony to the charges, and won't let this become a political circus. You heard that here first!

Further, why would the prosecutor want to do that? Listening to the guy right now, I can get a sense of the type of person he is-- a hard assed, no nonsense prosecutor who is nobody's political bitch. I don't think he'll react well to someone (from either party) who trires to make him one.

[DSeid]

I dunno. I think it starts to pile up in the minds of the general populus. It might not have had much of a notice at other times, but large segments of those previously behind Bush are primed to think poorly of him now, each for their own reasons. He's disappointed several elements of his supporters. The religious right felt that the payment for their support was going to be judges who would certainly hew to their line and Roe v Wade would be no more. Others are just annoyed by cronyism resulting in incompetance. Some just tire of Americans dead in Iraq as they begin to feel more of a threat from Nature than from terrorists, staying the course requires a committment, they didn't want that. They wanted to slug someone and feel better.

As to Sevastopol's comments ... you don't think that there was a little cognitive dissonance going on? Lots of people, of both parties, rallied round the President waving the flag. Here was a bad guy to beat up, he's got WMDs! get him! Once you've done that, you become real reluctant to admit that it was a mistake, that the reason you went to beat him up was a pack of ... untruths. Rather than do that you'll grab on to any other possible justification for your actions, and any talk that those reasons were not good enough will be met badly. Hence, the time was right to beat up on multilateralism and diplomatic solutions and to sell implied connections with terrorists that had no evidenciary basis. People wanted to believe because they didn't want to admit they had been wrong. One mistake often begets others. Holes get deeper the more we try to fill them up with bullshit. And if Bush had delivered with judges ready to push the Religious Right's agenda, they'd be hewing just fine.