Josh Marshall--who is rapidly becoming the go-to guy on the burgeoning CIA Leak case scandal, has been working on original reporting on the Italian connection to the forged documents.  This is a must read.  The real point where this scandal will become intensely difficult for the Bush White House is not the leak itself but the forged documents which led to the trip of Joe Wilson and the leaks to discredit his story that Cheney's inquiries led to his mission to Niger.

From Matt Cooper's recounting of his famous conversation with I. Lewis Libby on July 12, 2003:

That afternoon, we talked a bit on background and off the record, and he gave me an on-the-record quote distancing Cheney from Wilson's fact-finding trip to Africa for the CIA. In fact, he was so eager to distance his boss from Wilson that a few days later, he called to rebuke me for not having used the whole quote in the piece.

Why is this important?  Because the Plame disclosures weren't about killing the messenger--they were about killing the message.  The contents of the Plame "smear" were that his wife got him the job sending him to Africa and the Vice President had nothing to do with it.  The focus has been on the idea that it was a boondogle for Wilson.  That hasn't been the point.  The point has been to distance the Vice President from the fact-finding mission--a mission associated with the faked Niger documents.  The Vice President's staff was trying to disassociate him from the Niger dossier.  It will be up to the press to link him to it.

You may remember that we here at the Iron Mouth have been looking at the motivations behind the Administration's actions in the CIA Leak case from a different angle than most observers.  As we first indicated last week, the actions of the Office of the Vice President make more sense if the goal of the Plame leak was to distance the Vice President from being associated with Joe Wilson's visit to Niger by making Wilson's wife Valerie Plame the originator of the trip, not the Vice President's questions to a CIA briefer.

Information revealed in the indictment against Libby and coming out in press reports confirms our observations.

Yesterday, on NBC News, Tim Russert spoke about the contents of his conversation with Scooter Libby and indicated that Libby had called to complain about something that was said on an NBC cable news show.  Jeralyn Merritt, criminal attorney and author of the blog Talk Left, has pointed to the Hardball show on July 8, 2003 as the probable show.  What did Chris Matthews say?  That Cheney's office sent Wilson to Niger.  He was asking Curt Weldon what will no doubt become the money question of this scandal:

MATTHEWS: Why would the vice president's office, Scooter Libby or whoever is running that office -- why would they send a CIA effort down in Niger to verify something, find out there wasn't a uranium sale, and then not follow-up by putting that information -- or correcting that information -- in the president's State of the Union? If they went to the trouble to sending Joe Wilson all the way to Africa to find out whether that country had ever sold uranium to Saddam Hussein, why wouldn't they follow-up on that?

Then, talking to Howard Fineman, he puts it into the proper perspective:

MATTHEWS: Howard, I worked at the White House. Nothing gets through the president's speech making equipment, is operational unless it's been signed off by the National Security Council, by the State Department, by the vice president's office, by the CIA.

How could all those institutions of government have signed off on something they knew to be false, because the vice president's office sent the CIA down to Niger and Joe Wilson came back and said there was nothing to the story?

We have got a long way to go on this one.  Its the press that needs to be asking these questions.

Everyone is focusing on the press conference to divine the next move of Pat Fitzgerald.  But like a bullfighter, he deftly avoided giving anything up that wasn't in the "four corners of the indictment."

So, how does one learn where the case might be going?  By looking at the indictment itself.  There is where Fitzgerald's work is plain for all to see.  In our media-happy world, we often forget that the law is words.

Josh Marshall has the right instinct, however.  He draws our attention to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the indictment.  I think his observations apply equally to paragraph 24 as well:

   22.   On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.    

   23.   On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heardthat Wilson’s wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.

   24.   On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

Those three paragraphs stand out like a sore thumb at the end of the facts of the leak itself, especially.  Paragraph 22 is utterly superfulous to the elements of the crimes alleged to have been committed by Libby.  It mentions that there was planning amongst government officials regarding the discussion with the reporters. The next two paragraphs mention that that very same day, Libby then spoke with the reporters.  Why are the paragraphs there?  To let the other targets know that conspiracy is on the table and that they are next.  Who are they?  We know that Vice President Cheney was on the aircraft.

People, he ain't even getting started yet.

Libby indicted on Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1503, False Statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1001(a)(2), another False Statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1001(a)(2), Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1623 and an additional count of Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1623. 

Rove probably waived indictment by the grand jury and agreed to allow himself to be charged via an Information, should the prosecutor decide to do so.  We should find out soon if an additional grand jury will be empanelled.

We'll have answers at 12:00 and 2:00 p.m. 

UPDATE: 10 seconds later: The Press Conference announcement.  (.pdf)

From the Onion:

WASHINGTON, DC—After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court Thursday, President Bush announced that he will nominate the next person who walks through his door. "I assure the American people that the next person who enters my field of vision will be a highly qualified candidate of unimpeachable character, with a solid record, and--what's more--a good heart," Bush said. As of press time, 17 people were waiting outside the door, including the president's daughter Jenna, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Look for a nomination tommorow.  I kid you not.

As Josh notes, there's been some confusion out there regarding extensions to the grand jury looking into the CIA Leak Scandal.  I saw Keith Olbermann say that the Grand Jury cannot be extended beyond tommorow.

The answer is yes it can.

There are two types of Federal Grand Juries, Regular and Special.  The journalists aren’t looking at all of the applicable statutes and rules when they say it can’t be extended.

Generally, Fed.R.Crim. P. 6(g) provides that a Grand Jury may serve no more that 18 months.  A judge may extend this term up to six months.  It may not be extended by more than six months except pursuant to statute. 

However, special grand juries are empanelled under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 216.  Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3331(a) provides that a special grand jury may be created in any district with more than 4 million inhabitants or where the Attorney General or several of his designees determines it is so needed.  These grand juries can last up to 18 months and may be extended in six month periods up to a total time of 36 months. 

Special grand juries are called to investigate a particular crime, usually one that is of some importance. Special grand juries are convened for a period of 18 months, and may be extended for six month intervals for a total of an additional 18 months. 

From the reports I have seen, and from pure logic, this is a Special Grand Jury.

Speculation has been rampant about just how deep Patrick Fitzgerald is going to go in any potential consipracy indictments.  Many are hoping that he will go deep into the back story of the Administration's deeply flawed presentation of its case for the Iraq war. 

But questions about Fitzgerald's mandate to reach into these questions remain.  In the analysis below, I would like to suggest that Fitzgerald's ability to look into these questions depends very much on the nature of the conspiracy he alleges occured.

First, let's look at the mandate itself:

On December 30, 2003, Acting Attorney General James B. Comey gave Fitzgerald the authority to investigate the following:

By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

This was either clarified or expanded by a letter from James B. Comey on February 6, 2005:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

Thus he can "investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying unathorized disclosure."  A wide mandate.  The question is, how does this relate to the pre-war intelligence?

Readers who have been following our coverage of the CIA Leak case (the name that has finally stuck), knows that we have advanced a different theory of the reason for the Plame disclosures than has been previously discussed.  We think that the White House Iraq Group innacurately said that Plame sent her husband to Niger so that they could distance themselves from their inquiries about the Niger allegations.  Anyone pulling on that thread would ask the logical question--did Cheney and the rest of the White House Iraq Group learn of Wilson's report that there was no evidence that the Niger allegations were true?  If Cheney did know the Niger story was a hoax, the White House Iraq Group's knowing use of false intelligence would rank up there with the greatest poltical crimes of all time.

If this is what happened, the disclosure of Plame's name is actually a small part of a larger conspiracy.  Were that the case, it is easy to see how Fitzgerald could expand his investigation to cover every part of the pre-war intelligence efforts.  Time will tell if this is what has happened.

Just read the text of the Miers withdrawal letter over at Think Progress and started laughing.  It appears she decided to withdraw not because she had little support and little to recommend her to the Court, but because she saw it as her duty to protect the confidentiality and independence of the Executive Branch.  Come on!  It would have been more believable if they'd just gone with the tried and true "wanted to spend more time with the family" theme.  Lame....

Now that Ms. Miers has stepped down might I suggest another sure pick:  Senator Bill Frist.  Sure, no legal background, scandal over finances and utter lack of political judgment but he is a Senator and just may be well-liked enough to get confirmed.  Just think, son of a wealthy family, heart surgeon, senator, Senate Majority leader and quite possibly the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.... if that isn't the quintessential American success story I don't know what is?

While I'm throwing out quotes, one of my favorites comes from John Jacob's biography of Phil Burton, the liberal firebrand Congressman from San Francisco who was a major political mover and shaker in California and national politics from the 50's until his death in 1982.  Nancy Pelosi currently holds his old seat and if you've ever spent time in a National Recreation Area you probably enjoyed one of the fruits of his many labors. 

Despite a very coarse personal style, Burton was the quintessential legislative genius with a penchant for not only being on top of every small detail of legislation but also knowing how to form the most unlikely coalitions of liberals and conservatives to pass his legislation.  Frankly he could be very intimidating to both friend and foe alike.  Early in Jacob's book there is a quote that probably best sums up Burton's political philosophy:

You have to learn how to terrorize the bastards....If you start giving these special interests what they should end up with, they don't lose a dime, they have no limit on their greed or their view of their own self-worth and power.... Do not make them figure out how much they're going to get, but how much they've got that they're going to lose.  Most of my colleagues work it the other end:  they kiss the asses of everyone.

Now read this New York Times piece about how having given the Oil and Gas industries billions in tax breaks and subsidies Congressional Republicans have basically resorted to begging, yes, begging these same industries, who after all keep posting major earnings records, to increase output and build more refineries.  Basically, they gave away the farm and now have to fall back on the good will of their patrons....I miss the Phil Burton's of the world.

The whole Miers saga reminds me of a quote from the confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nominee that was widely lambasted as a mediocre legal mind and incompetent lawyer and judge. That man was G. Harrold Carswell and he was Richard Nixon's second failed nominee, after Clement Haynsworth, to replace Abe Fortas . 

At the time, sensing that the nomination was going nowhere, Nebraska Republican Senator Roman Hruska spoke out and uttered the infamous words,

"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?   We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there. "

The Miers nomination didn't even get to a floor vote, and Ms. Miers doesn't nearly have the reputation of old Judge Carswell, but the derision of this nomination from both left and right puts it in the same sorry league.  I also have to agree with Marshall Wittman at the Bull Moose that few people have done more to champion or exemplify Hruska's poor choice of words than our own C+ President, George W. Bush.

Every reporter and democratic surrogate should be asking Republicans the same question over and over again: Do you categorically deny that the Vice President was ever informed of the results of Joe Wilson's investigation of the Niger forgeries?  Why?  Because that's the question that they never wanted to answer which lead to this scandal in the first place.  Locking them into an answer now will clear this whole thing up fast.

Miers withdraws in the early morning.

Na na na na, hey hey-hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye
Listen to me now
He's never near you to comfort and cheer you
When all those sad tears are fallin' baby from your eyes
He might be thrillin' baby but a-my love (my love, my love)
So dog-gone willin'
So kiss him (I wanna see you kiss him. I wanna see you kiss him)
Go on and kiss him goodbye

Na-na na-na-na na na na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye
Hey hey-hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye

Update: Proposed Victory Parade Route:

In real estate news, commercial office space at 1401 New York Avenue NW Washington, D.C. was rented out today.  The space was leased by the Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

Update (5:15 p.m. 10/27/05):  Debunked.

I saw this over at the Dailykos and couldn't pass up linking to it:  If Fox News Had Been Around Throughout History.  Enjoy!

White House attacks parody paper, news at 11.  The White House vs. The Onion.  Check out this Doug Moe column in the Capital Times newspaper and scroll down to the response from the Onion's lawyer, Rochelle Klaskin.  Hilarious!

There may be reason to believe those recent reports about Bush acting moody, vindictive and unhinged after all?

Despite strong and sustained efforts of government and media sources over the past two years to downplay the implications of the Plame investigation, despite that "this is how the game is played" attitude among our punditocracy, despite a new found sympathy for perjury and lying to prosecutors in cases involving national security among members of Congress, despite the last-gasp droning about "criminalizing politics" and run-away prosecutors,  after all this we are left with this CNN poll:  only 1 in 10 Americans believe that the Bush Administration did nothing illegal or unethical in outing Valerie Wilson.  

Where's that confident, effective well-oiled political PR machine we've come to expect?  Excessive and systematic lying ain't easy?

There were no WMD.  They looked and looked and looked as hard as they could and found none.  Now they want us to believe that they had no idea that was the case and that they were totally fooled by the obvious Niger forgeries.  Again--the point is this.  There were never any WMD.  They can weave and bob all of they want, they cannot get around this simple fact.

While we sit and ponder coming indictments and the unveiling of the media's mysterious Mr X as Vice President Cheney, I was kicking around and found links to copies of the forged Niger documents for our faithful IRONMOUTH readers to peruse.   

Look at the parsing in today's bombshell NY Times story fingering Cheney as the source of Plame's identity:

Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby's legal status.

Looks like Libby's lawyer may have commented on some other things, just not Mr. Libby's legal status.  It doesn't indicate that he didn't say anything else.  Thus he is probably the source of the leak.  The reporters could not have truthfully said that he didn't comment if he gave them the notes scoop.

Italy's La Repubblica is now reporting that Italian Intelligence knowingly shopped forged documents to the White House in an attempt to bypass a skeptical CIA.  Those documents formed the basis for the yellowcake allegations which the Administration relied upon in the run up to war.  The fact that this story is rapidly converging with the Plame Leak matter is very, very bad for the White House.  It means that Fitzgerald will most likely divulge details regarding the forged memos in his indictments, which, Raw Story is announcing will come.

Josh indicating "very explosive" news out of Italy on the Niger front.  Its all happening.  Right now.

Raw Story now reporting that Fitzgerald Opts to Seek Indictments.  Raw Story hasn't been wrong in a month.  Not that this wasn't expected, but it looks like the votes are today.

Some indications that Liddy is not Libby:

I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, first learned of agent Valerie Plame's identity in a conversation with Cheney weeks before her name became public in July 2003, the New York Times reported last night, citing lawyers involved in the case.

The disclosure doesn't indicate that the vice president did anything wrong, said a senior Republican with ties to Cheney. The person declined to make a similar statement about Libby.

The senior Republican, who spoke on condition of anonymity, sought to portray Cheney as uninvolved in any violation of a 1982 law forbidding the revelation of a covert intelligence agent's identity. The official noted that both Cheney and Libby had the security clearances necessary to discuss Plame's identity.

And even more ominous for the Vice President:

One lawyer intimately involved in the case, who like the others demanded anonymity, said one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the vice president may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy.

That's the essence of conspiracy.

According to the Washington Post, the White House is rolling out a new damage control campaign, however if you read the article you'll notice that it's the same damn damage control plan they've used for the last three years.  Give the same boring speech to a handpicked audience about how Iraq is looking good and then say the economy is picking up? 

Before the 2000 election, I remember some commentator talking about how the Bush people would bring that classic "gray flannel suit/corporate mentality" to White House operations, and while most pundits were saying that the White House needed more structure after Clinton, this person noted that the encompanying deficiency of such a mentality or style was a lack of vision and the inability to be flexible and pragmatic when things didn't work.  Amazing how right he was!

From an article in The Hill:

Last year, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), then angling to become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took aim at Wilson and advised his colleagues to wait for a Supreme Court appointment to overshadow the investigation.

King continued to heap criticism on Wilson yesterday, telling The Hill that Wilson is a fraud and that the government “had a right to make known that his wife sent him on the trip.”

His wife sending him on the trip is a huge issue with these people.   They are playing it like their strength--the more pressure that is put on this fulcrum of their explanation for the scandal, the better.  More than ever, it seems to be the crux of the matter.

Earlier, I suggested that the Plame case makes much more sense as a cover-up of the White House Iraq Group's role in Joe Wilson's trip to Africa than a simple smear or intimidation campaign.  Having said that, I'd like to go over some of the reasons why they would want to cover up Cheney & Co's involvement with all of this:

(1) The Administration, and Cheney specifically, want to distance themselves from the fact that their inquiries led to the trip and that they were later debriefed on the trip. This would be a problem because the claim about the yellowcake in Africa found in the State of the Union 2003 occurred almost one whole year after Joe Wilson returned from Niger and reported that there was no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium. That would mean that they knowingly pushed a story they knew was false. I don't think the Administration could survive a pr oven scenario of this sort.

(2) The Administration had a role in producing or encouraging the production of the now-radioactive fake documents and had expected their forgery to stand up to some level of lesser inquiry. They then asked the CIA to look into the faked documents as part of this attempt to pass the information through the CIA filter, proving its "authenticity." They could claim that the CIA found out about it and they had nothing to do with it. (note that Bush claimed the British government had learned of the alleged attempts to buy yellowcake uranium. I know the Administration could not survive a claim of this sort. Impeachment and removal from office would certainly occur, regardless of who was in control in Congress.

Finally, I would like everyone to keep in mind that I'm trying to look at the motivations of the Vice President at the time of the campaign against Joe Wilson--I am aware that the Administration has danced around this issue and made some level of admission that they did ask questions about the Niger allegations.

So the next question is--how did the WHIG find out about the Niger allegations?  Has this part been filled in?

From Meet The Press, September 14, 2003:

MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.

I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White papers. So there may be difference of opinion there. I don’t know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess—like I say, I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.

From tonight's blockbuster report:

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.

It looks like the Vice President of the United States lied to the American People.

Cheney Told Aide of CIA Officer, Notes Show.  (NY Times, Registration Required).

President Bush is expected to nominate his personal accountant to head the Federal Reserve...okay, just kidding, the New York times says it's Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

A few thoughts on how the press got here.

In the old days, the press had a monopoly on the delivery of the news.  They had the printing presses and the distribution networks needed to get the information out to consumers.  It was that control of the delivery which gave their media the economic value it had for consumers.

It also gave it value for those who wanted to shape the news.  Sources who wanted to shape the news went to the press and gave them exclusive stories in order to reach the consumers who were dependent on the media for news.

But something changed.  The delivery of information became massively decentralized between 1980 and 2000.  Cable, desktop publishing, cheap video cameras and video editing equipment and the Internet changed everything.  Now delivery of information became easy for anyone. 

That left the media with only one thing--the access to newsmakers the press had gained earlier as a result of their previous control of the distribution of information.  But since the press no longer offered the only means of access to information for consumers, those who wanted to get their message out to the press had the dominant role. 

The Bush Administration was the first group to truly understand this, even if only in an unconscious way.  They cut those off that didn't publish stories favorable to them.  The result was that the media became cowed because they feared losing access to inside information and their only advantage over their self-publishing rivals.  Now our media is a cowed shadow of itself unwilling to to ask the hard questions for fear of losing an insider access that is worth less and less because the exclusive stories they are getting are simply press releases disguised as news.

Whoops!   Looks like things might get a little crazy in this little town of Washington:

NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium.

If Fitzgerald goes there, we are really, really talking something.  This is literally the worst thing Bush could ever face.

Just took a glance at the CNN website this morning and noticed their Quick Vote poll question was, " Could you name the British Foreign Secretary?" and of course a significant majority of CNN viewers couldn't.  It is my hope that they will do a follow up poll of the question, "Does CNN do a crappy job of covering international events and world leaders?"

Ever wonder why Bob Novak suddenly lost it a few months ago on CNN after James Carville joked he needed to act tough for his conservative brethren and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal? 

 Who knows, but maybe it was the pressure of being a stool pigeon playing ball with the special prosecutor all those months; a defiant asshole in public desparately hoping no one learns he's a sell out? 

 A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.  

I bet he's thinking he should've just stayed a heart surgeon?  Hey, who was the political genius that thought the man would make a great Senate majority leader, yet alone might have a shot at being President?

What, exactly, was the purpose of going after Joe Wilson?

The tacit assumption by everyone, everywhere has been that they wanted to discredit him for stating that there was no Iraqi attempt at yellowcake purchases.  They were mad and wanted to strike back at him.

But it has always puzzled me why they went after him through his wife.  Why not just call him a partisan Democrat who was working to defeat the President and be on with it?

I've seen it suggested, by Josh Marshall in particular, that the idea was that they were challenging Wilson's manhood by basically saying his wife got him the "boondoggle."  The sexual smear has always been a signature Rove move.

But its not about that.  It really makes no sense to me.  I particularly don't care about it and I think the vast majority of people could care less.  Basically the theory is that Wilson got his great free trip to malaria-infested West Africa.  Its laughable.  But if the motive was not revenge, what was it?

Let's look at the real contents of the slur--reverse engineer what is going on by looking at what it was the White House Iraq Group, headed by Vice President Cheney, was trying to convince top-opinion making journalists was the truth.  Joe Wilson's wife sent him to Africa.  Joe Wilson is lying when he says that Dick Cheney sent him to Africa.

This scandal is not about getting back at Joe Wilson.  Its about who sent Joe Wilson to Africa.  And we know how Joe Wilson got sent to Africa.  The Vice President's office sent him there by asking the CIA to look into the Niger uranium purchases allegations.   Where did those allegations come from?  From a forged document. 

So what we have here is the Vice President's office trying to convince the world that it did not send Joe Wilson to Africa on the basis of information in a forged document.  That is to say, they were trying to cover up the fact that the Vice President had asked the CIA to look into the allegations.  Put another way, the White House Iraq Group did not care that Joe Wilson said he found no evidence of attempted uranium purchases.  They cared that he had said that an inquiry by the Vice President's office was the origin of his trip.

Let's look at their current behavior.  Last night on Hardball Chris Matthews pulled out what he described as a "poop sheet" that was sent out by the Republican National Committee to Republican senators.  What was it about?  Joe Wilson.  They are still going after him--even when they are on the verge of indictment for smearing him in the first place.  Why?  It seems insane on its face.  Joe Wilson's allegations are now totally old news.  Everyone knows that there were no Iraqi yellowcake purchase inquiries  The only open question is: Who sent Joe Wilson to Africa?  And the Administration is still trying to say through its proxies, that they did not send Wilson to Africa.  

Now why would they want to that?  Why would the White House Iraq Group care that they were associated with an attempt to learn whether or not Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium?  And why would they still be fighting that battle?  Because anyone pulling on that thread might come up with something much, much bigger.

What could that be?  I'll leave the obvious connecting of dots to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

For the last week, Chris Matthews has been way, way, out in front of the CIA Leak story, tonight suggesting that Fitzgerald was going to bring charges relating to false testimony before the war in front of Congress.  All week, he’s been talking about how huge the end result of this might be.  Is he just banking on a big bang in hoping that the charges are the worst possible in order to make himself look good?  Or does he truly have some information we don’t have.  Remember Matthews is one of the six journalists contacted by the White House in the Wilson work up operation.  Since he was involved, I am certain he had his own private lawyer in the case.  That lawyer, if he was worth anything, would be trying to keep tabs on the whole thing.  Matthews could ask questions of that lawyer as to what was going on in the grand jury, and that person might have a better idea than most as to what was going on.  Matthews’ lawyer would have to respond to any direct question Matthews had about the case—otherwise the lawyer would be violating the attorney’s duty to communicate with the client.