Maybe he would have a difficult time proving malice, but why wouldn't he, in giving a statement to the media, launch a strong public relations campaign implying legal action?

Well, obviously I can't speak for Senator Craig. But, based on how he's handled this imbroglio to date, he has created a public relations' nightmare for himself and the GOP, so I doubt that implying legal action would get him much positive traction. If he weren't so out-of-touch, he'd just quit the Senate and go home to Idaho.

I just read a quote from a foreign correspondent (Reese Something - sorry, I didn't note the last name) from the Balitmore Sun who claims that the Cheney/Bush Administration has been sitting on (read: supressing) this NIE report since February.

So, you're right -- they tried really, really hard to use their inflated claims as reason to attack Iran, but (so far) it looks like they've been stymied on using the "World War III" scenario.

But, stay tuned....they'll lie about something else. Soon.

Hillary is spot on to point out that Obama used the "3rd way to vote" in the Illinois legislature -- he picked "present" on critical votes where he could have taken a stand and made a hard choice, and voted "yes" or "no" and explained his rationale. But, no....he chose to give himself political cover.

"Present" is NOT an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

Look it up -- he voted present on important bills -- regarding so-called "partial birth" abortion, a bill pertaining to concealed weapons, a bill pertaining to prosecution of adults who discharged a firearm on school grounds, a bill pertaining to the privacy of sex abuse victims, a bill about parental notification on abortion, on the location of strip clubs.

Obama chose political expediency over taking a strong stand. A "present" vote (as allowed in the Illinois legislature) is essentially a "no" vote because it takes a "yes" vote to pass legislation. HIs "present" votes do not portray him as the progressive he claims to be.

His votes in the Senate are only part of who Obama is.

Many of us have been justifiably annoyed with The Grey Lady (remember Judith Miller!), but in this case your assumption is unfounded. TNYT did report the NIE story, and included Stephen Hadley's "cover story," and a pdf file of the key judgments on the national intelligence assessment, plus a satement by the deputy director of nat'l intel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?ex=1197435600&en=63edca3a23e142c7&ei=5070&emc=eta1

CBS confirms 2006 Raw Story scoop: Plame's job was to keep nukes from Iran

Muriel Kane and Dave Edwards

Published: Saturday October 20, 2007

CBS News has confirmed, in advance of a 60 Minutes interview with outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to be run this Sunday, that Plame "was involved in operations to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

"Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons," Plame told 60 Minutes. Plame also indicated that her outing in 2003 had caused grave damage to CIA operations, saying, "All the intelligence services in the world were running my name through their databases" to see where she had gone and who she had met with.

+++++++

Maybe the Cheney/Bush Bunch felt the heat and took this unusual step of making public the NIE as a pre-emptive move to minimize the fallout?

If Bush and his boyfriends were serious about diplomatic engagement, they would bring Iran to the negotiating table and make them an offer, with some guarantees, and by so doing, the U.S. would have China, Russia and the Europeans standing at our side.

Instead, Bush continues to bloviate and move the goal posts. When the Decider Guy decided (after being told what to decide) that if the Iranians had the KNOWLEDGE to make a nuclear weapon, that was reason enough to keep them in the DANGER column, I knew the bushies weren't going to give up on getting their 3rd War on his watch.

It ain't over.

JESUS LOVE YOU!

Everyone else thinks you're an asshole.

Absent some form of self control exercised by the great majority of people the great majority of the time, whether you call it ethics, values, or religion, freedom degenerates into licentiousness and disorder.

But...Mitt did say RELIGION...so, in that context, Mitt has committed a major faux pas.

The Bush Administration of Lost Opportunities will (theoretically) end on January 20, 2009. But, try and erase the memory of those years!

The Bush Years can be described as a monumental modern disgrace, from start to finish, as we recall one story of lost opportunity after another -- mind numbing in their repetition. The Bush Administration hasn't done anything right.

Who knows what January 20, 2009 would look like if Al Gore had prevailed in the Supreme Court? One thing we can be certain of is that we would have had a president who was engaged, intelligent, informed, and forward-looking.

Instead we've had the Bush Administration of Lost Opportunities, selling fear as its only reliable resource for maintaining their control. When Al Gore lost his "opportunity" on December 12, 2000, we all lost.

Al Gore was the second man from the tiny town of Carthage, Tennessee, to win the Nobel peace prize. The first was U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull who got it in 1945 for his role fostering the United Nations.

Possibly Scooter dropped his appeal because had he won a new trial, there was the clear and present danger that facts would come out in his new trial proving the Oval Office's role in, not only outing Plame, but more importantly its role in trying to keep the latest NIE underwraps for its warmongering efforts. (I believe they are interconnected.)

Also, Libby's commutation would be meaningless and he would again face potential prison time.