I presume, that if Libby had refused to testify at all, that he'd never have been charged, or convicted, of anything. What would his refusal to testify have left Fitzgerald with? What does Fitzgerald have now in terms of proof of a crime in relation to Plame?

But Libby did "cooperate." He gave voluntary intereviews to the FBI, without benefit of counsel. He testified before the grand jury, also without an attorney at his side, and went back repeatedly every time he was asked to do so. He did everything that the investigators asked of him. His answers were different from Russert. And I see know reason to presume that Tim Russert is particularly credible.

...you just say, "I think this prosecutor is setting me up for a perjury trap. I decline to testify based upon my fifth amendment rights." End of story. End of the witness' appearance.

Libby didn't do that. I kind of wish he had.

Of course the fact that Libby had lawyers with him when he was interviewed twice by the FBI, before Fitzgerald was appointed, changes everything, doesn't it? Not. Fitzgerald got his interviews, his grand jury witnesses, his documents, etc.

...that Bush beat Gore and then beat Kerry. Who gives a rip about any fringe group of wackos who believe that the the United States is ruled by "crypto-fascists" and "war criminals."

Get yourself a Presidential candidate who agrees with you, and get that candidate nominated. Please. The Republicans need an opponent like that.

Just give us a nominee.

I could never understand the "smear" allegations hurled at Cheney and the rest of the Administration. I mean, I understand that there is no limit on the unjustified hate-speech that the left will lob at the President and the Vice President. But "smear" and "revenge" are really not even salient, sensible charges to be made in this case.

Nobody "smeared" Joe Wilson in outing his wife. The reason for exposing the wife was purely for the purpose of explaining, truthfully, that she was involved in sending him to Niger on a CIA-orchestrated mission. When Wilson then attacked the administration publicly, in the midst of a pitched battle between the entrenched bureaucrats at CIA and the 'vlucans' in the VP's office, the goal was not to "smear" Wilson, or to get "revenge." It was to undermine his claims. And guess what? His claims deserved to be undermined! Wilson was full of baloney, as the Senate determined when they conducted an investigation of his claims!

If Mrs. Joseph Wilson IV had had no role in sending her hubby to Niger, does anyone think that her name would have come up in connection with this story?

Greenwald wrote:

"And Klein deliberately makes no mention of the several felony counts of "obstruction of justice" and 'false statements' for which Libby was convicted -- [to Klein] it's just 'perjury'"

The fact is, it really was 'just perjury.' The 'obstruction' and 'false statement' counts of the indictment were simply pile-ons as to the basic facts in dispute: what was the content of Libby's conversations with Matt Cooper, Judy Miller and Tim Russert. Only. Joe Klein was much more correct in saying "it was just perjury" than Glenn Greenwald is in saying, "several felony counts of obstruction and false statements." Libby was not accused of destroying documents, or of tampering with witnesses, or of falsifying evidence, or fraud, or any of the other usual methods of "obstruction." The three or four felony counts were all different names for the same activity; testimonly about the Libby/reporter conversations. Libby simply remembered his conversations differently from the reporters.

That makes NO sense!

If it was a crime to 'out' Mrs. Plame-Wilson, why wasn't Armitage charged? If the goal of the investigation was to figure out who told Armitage, why not demand that information from Armitage? What the heck does Libby have to do with a conversation between Armitage and Robert Novak?

I think I know how Armitage knew who and what Joe Wilson's wife was. It is this -- I presume that it was common, ordinary, widely-dispersed knowledge within the State Department, where the gossipy Armitage and Wilson both worked.

The office of the Vice President wouldn't have had anything to do with State or the CIA. Those two institutions didn't like the Vice President, and he didn't like them.

My advice to you, Scientician; Hold your breath, and stand on your head, until the Vice President is indicted for the crime of violating the Intelligence Identities Act.

What's that you say? You aren't voting at all? Good.

Lincoln actually suspended habeas corpus for Americans!

And Churchill's Air Marshall killed more German civillians in one night's bombing than the U.S. has in four years in Iraq!

No doubt, Lincoln and Churchill were the respective Men of the Century in the 19th and 20th Centuries, respectively. But by comparison, the warfare methods of the 43rd President are mild, surgical, and highly legalized, compared to the great men of the past.

The outing of Plame wasn't "revenge"! It was "rebuttal"! Joe Wilson started all this with his b.s. Op-Ed in the NYT.

And don't get all righteous with us about protecting national security and clandestine service secrets, unless you are also willing to criticize the same NYT for using a leak to blow the covering on the NSA's surveillance of telcom information.

I doubt that it will proceed, in the last analysis. But if it does, I can hardly wait for Joe and Valerie's depositions. I'd pay for those transcripts.

Rusty Austin --

"...I can't wait to see Libby incarcerated. His crimes victimized millions of people..."

What the angry left wants to see Libby convicted of is "the war in Iraq." Libby's alleged "perjury" victimized no one.

As usual, there is another side of this story that has been willfully ignored by the stilted, left-wing echo chamber that is Salon (and NPR, and CNN, and the NYT, and...)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010204