First Tom Delay's mugshot and now Libby. Do they think they can just wish the charges away with butterflies and sunshine?

I have a question about the logic associated with this indictment. It seems to me that no matter how serious the charges against Libby are, that without an associated crime, the concept of obstruction of justice is a bit thin without an associated indictment for the primary crime itself.

If no indictment for the primary crime is forthcoming then the Libby defense will almost certainly be that Mr. Libby had no reason to lie other than he is a busy man and may have confused the chronology. Conversely, with the indictment for the primary crime, then there is a clear motive to lie.

Perhaps it is that this logic is naive, but still with a prosecuter as thorough as Fitzgerald, it seems strategically inconsistent to charge a man with lieing about a crime then report that no crime was actually commited. Therefore, doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that more indictments are coming?

Having said all this, stacking the courts with agenda-driven Republican judges has been a winning strategy for GOP legal arguments in the past no matter how illogical the argument, so perhaps this analysis is moot in such a context.

The media seems to have glommed onto '135 years since the last indictment of a white house official'. I've seen that number repeated a dozen times in the last week. It's actually 130 years since Orville Babcock was indicted, in 1875, for his alleged role in the Whiskey Ring that so damaged US Grant's administration.

Is this the new talking point for the Bush sycophants? Does that mean that if there were no crime, Libby could lie all he wants in an attempt to obstruct justice, and it would be ok. Or does it mean that lying is ok when a Republican does it, because he must have had a really, really good reason?

Joe Baldwin wrote:

I have a question about the logic associated with this indictment. It seems to me that no matter how serious the charges against Libby are, that without an associated crime, the concept of obstruction of justice is a bit thin without an associated indictment for the primary crime itself. (emphasis in original)

The whole point of 'obstruction of justice' is preventing from justice being realized. By lying to the FBI and special prosecutor, Libby made it difficult, if not impossible, to actual find out if the "primary crime" did indeed occur. If I testify to one thing and your testimony contradicts mine, I have lied under oath. By doing so, I have made it that much harder for you to prove whether a crime has been committed. Now, it may turn out that the crime was not committed, but my dissembling made it more difficult to determine the reality of the crime.