A man who lied us into war, and continued repeating the lies about WMDs and a Saddam-Osama connection long after the rest of the Busheviks, would have no scruples about lying under oath. All we can hope for is that Fitz has enough information from other sources to catch him at it.

There is absolutely no way that Fitzgerald should trust that Cheney is going to tell the truth just because he is under oath. Cheney could be compelled to tell the truth *if* Fitzgerald can box him in with supporting evidence for the narrative he (Fitzgerald) is pushing.

So far Fitzgerald has shown himself to be a very thorough and careful prosecutor. Let's hope he's taking these steps because he has the supporting evidence he needs.

yeah scooter forgot. right. rove forgot too. can someone amongst this pack of powerful type A types remember anything?

what would it take? they seem like they would have better memories...

So, let me see if I understand this. According to Libby's lawyers: (1) the note isn't authentic, (2) BUT if it is authentic, then it's not relevant, (3) BUT if it is relevant, then "hey, look, is that Elvis?!". Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think that there's such a thing as fact, and only one of those statements can represent what really happened. Only liars find the truth so malleable.

Ambassador Wilsons article exposed a fat lie about WMDs, a lie that had by then already been questionable. Cheney as a power behind the king of liars had to have revenge. The well known philosophy of letting an underling take the rap is well established in the neo-con mind. Libby did just not scoot fast enough to keep out of trouble by revealing secrets to friendly reporters. If Cheney will be forced to testify, he will in all likelyhood lie and try to cover his behind. He did that way back during the Vietnam draft and has plenty of experience to shot others but not himself.