William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers seized on Woodward's testimony, citing it as evidence that the focus on Libby may not be as accurate as once thought, and that there may be other things that Fitzgerald doesn't know about. "Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?" Good question. Anyone think we'll get the answer?

Good question? Sure, but we already have the answer: There's an obstruction of justice going on, isn't there?

Libby's lawyer asks: "Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?" Good question. Anyone think we'll get the answer?

Well, no, its not a good question. It is a question that does nothing but obfuscate and try to throw one off the scent. Libby is indicted for lying and obstructing justice, and nothing in Woodward's revelations alters the facts of the indictment, other than perhaps Libby was not the "first" member of the Admnistration to talk to reporters. He still lied to the Grand Jury and investigators, and "repeatedly". He still obstructed jsutice. So, if I were Mr. Fitzgerald, my response to Libby's lawyer would be to quote Mr. Cheney, himself, and thell him "Go F*** Youself."

You wrote:

==

"Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?" Good question."

==

Good question??

Do you really think that the two years of intensive investigation by Fitzgerald was not enough? You (and most conservatives) are trying to confuse the issue (as usual). The prime question is not so much who KNEW, but rather who TOLD. So far, Libby told, and Rove did too. So what if Bob Woodward knew about Plame first. Would that have made her "fair game" - to use the Administration phrase? The law says NO, it would not. Once leaked, there is no right to FURTHER spread classified info around (especially not by Federal employees - who are obligated by law to start damage control on the leak by notifying supervisors, etc.).

LTJ

What bothered me most about the Washington Post article about the Woodward-Plame revelation is how much Woodward curiously disagrees with the investigation overall. Contrary to the CIA officials who requested the DOJ to investigate the matter, the lifetime journalist thinks the harm done by outing the CIA operative Plame was "minimal."

I think Bobby is getting a little too big for his britches. A scandal just isn't a scandal without Woodward and Deep Throat I guess. Sure, outing an undercover CIA agent isn't as harmful to our national security as getting oral sex from an intern, but perhaps worth investigating and prosecuting none-the-less; so long as we get the okay from Sir Robert Woodward.

By my calculation, 'almost a month before' Novak's column would be around June 23 - when we KNOW Scooter was flapping his lips with Judy Miller. And if the leaker wasn't Scooter, then it appears to bolster the argument that this was a coordinated attempt to intimidate the Wilsons and anyone else who dared criticize Dear Leader.

Woodward's connection to Leakgate and Watergate is, of course, remarkable, and perfectly suited for assorted Odd News sections and Ripley's Believe It or Not. But there's also a resounding degree of tragedy here.

Somehow, his presence in this unfolding surreal nightmare illustrates the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq as well as the distinct differences. Both wars, shaped by internal and external ideologies, aimed at defeating polarized opponents without a profound understanding of the vast complexities involved in the process that ultimately required obfuscation and deception in order to persist. But back then, through a deeper commitment to the overall welfare, the press was a fearless, passionately driven force, which presented the facts that helped change history.

Over the decades, however, that sense of community has diminished and so has the level of duty the press has for America's overall welfare. Idealism associated with the State yielded to idealism tied to one's own welfare. This has included unethical fraternization with people in the news, such as Judith Miller's embrace of White House operatives; assuming a more moderated style of inquiry to avoid being ostracized and left with only anonymous sources, such as Woodward's approach over the past few years; and a greater simpatico with right wing ideology, including the argument that the Iraq war would benefit Israel, the overly restrictive monetarist policies of the Fed, and the Ayn Rand sense of individual success, which Thomas Friedman has relished.

What's made matters worse has been the sheer potency of the right wing revolution, from Reagan to the AEI, from Laffer to Limbaugh, from the S&C Yalies to the Kristols, which weakened left wing positions. That applied enormous pressure on the nation's editorial boards to veer to the center to sustain circulation and ad revenue, allowing a former unimpeachable source like the New York Times to insist Saddam harbored WMD when Scott Ritter and the UN inspection team had proven otherwise.

And what were Americans left with at that point? All the news fit to print? Yeah, if fit is defined by conforming instead of reevaluating, counting up the shrinking profits instead of accounting for all the blatant wrongdoing, and worrying about your own personal success instead of trying to prevent the plethora of losses this country has undured over the past five years.

Regardless of what happens to Woodward, Miller, Novack, and a roster as long as McCarthy's black list, including the heads of many broadcast outlets who have twidled their thumbs while Rome has burnt, the damage has been done. Let's hope it's not irreversible, because without a viable 4th Estate this democracy cannot exist.

It's laughable (and criminal) that Libby et al. attempt to require that Fitzgerald be expected to "fully investigate," when they themselves were lying or withholding evidence such that he COULDN'T do so.

It's time for folks to point out that the core of Fitz's case against Libby was the obstruction of justice caused by his lying and withholding. Perhaps the same shoe fits Woodward.