Cleary an example of democrats trying to find an excuse to give Cheney trouble by bringing forth an attenuated connection. Anybody disagree?

In response to Dan's comment above:
I'm not so sure: the exposure in the first place reeked of revenge. While Cheney might not have been involved, Rove might ahve been. If the Democrats were the ones doing this, the Republicans would be screaming for their heads, indicting and attempting to impeach everyone that had even heard about it. This is all business as usual at the Capitol. Have we all forgotten Monica-Gate?

I can forgive personal exploits in the oval office. I can forgive even trying to cover those up. Sexual relations are not patently illegal or against the vaunted "homeland security" that this administration values so highly. Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is both. The reason that this investigation is so important is that it may reveal what the paranoid among us have suspected for a while: that 9/11 became an excuse to go to war, and that the reasons we went to war were fabricated or the reasons not to were covered up. True, all of this leads to Bush and Cheney, even though they might not have been personally involved. I don't think it's necessarily an attenuated connection: these men pride themselves on towing the administration line and on staying with the message and in-line. This suggests, I think, that the actions of the subordinates coincide with the wishes of the superiors. That might not be the case here, but we'd be irresponsible to not look into it.

Dan,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Additionally, the information I have heard via various satellite radio news programs indicates that this entire story is being inappropriately categorized as a “leak.” If there is anyone to blame for “outing” the CIA agent, it should be the agent’s husband, Joseph Wilson, who for years has paraded her around Washington, introducing her as his “CIA wife.” While I don’t know how accurate this information is considering my primary source is Fox News (always Fair and Balanced), I also wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to use any opportunity available to cast Vice President Cheney in a negative light. Furthermore, it appears to me that Mr. Wilson is exploiting this situation in the media for his own political gain.

What exactly do the Democrats have to do with the investigation, outside of public statements?

Fitzgerald is a registered Independent and was praised by the Republicans for his integrity when first appointed to run the investigation.

Did someone break the law by leaking Plame's name? I don't know. I think there is evidence on both sides. But what Fitzgerald made clear is that he could not get to the truth of the matter because of Scooter not telling the truth. That's kind of the point of obstruction of justice...he was obstructing justice.

Whether Scooter lied under oath really has nothing to do with Wilson or Plame.

While I respect the opinions of those who contribute to the blog, I don't give much credence to an argument when one's analysis of the situation comes from the talking heads that dominate the politically motivated tv and radio airwaves. The nonsense they conjure up on those programs, on both left and right sides of the poltical spectrum, only serve to divide this country more. Most of their analysis and conclusions are pure garbage.

How about you listen to the press conference by Bush-appointed independent counsel instead of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. There was a leak and it came from this administration.

People's livelihoods and more importantly, lives, were at stake because of this leak (and it was an intentional leak, no question about it). When people die to settle a political score, it makes me angry. Anyone involved, whether it be a President, Vice-President, Chief of Staff, or Special Advisor/Puppeteer,
should resign immediately.

With the next stage of the legal proceedings taking place around February 2006, is it possible that if Libby was subsequently convicted, President G.W. Bush would be able to pardon him before leaving office? What is the likelihood that this would occur?

"Conservative commentators have made what appear to be preemptive accusations that Fitzgerald is a partisan. Numerous Fox News personalities -- including Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney, and Bill O'Reilly -- have stated that his probe represents the "criminalization of politics." William Kristol penned a Weekly Standard editorial on the topic titled "Criminalizing Conservatives." On the October 19 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher claimed that this investigation -- like the recent indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on money laundering charges -- "is driven by partisan politics." (http://mediamatters.org/items/200510210008)

I'm really not sure if Dan is kidding or not at this point. I'm frightened to think he might be serious.

Did he just cite Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto? There may not be a less reliable source, or really a worse human being, on planet Earth than Sean Hannity.

An example. Hannity will have you believe that if you criticize the president during the war, you either (a) are unpatriotic, (b) hate america, (c) support terrorism or (d) all of the above. Yet, Hannity was one of the most vocal critics of President Clinton during Kosovo, even calling the war "Clinton's War". Seems a tad hypocritical.