I dunno. There is no evidence from his prior work that Fitzgerald is eithere incompetent or partisan. Quite the opposite. We still don't know everything.

I think your first observation, though, that Woodward certainly knows that Karl Rove has been to the grand jury more than once is spot on, Maguire-esque in its parsing of the words. There are, however, two other explanations. First, Woodward could well be throwing up smoke and mirrors. It won't be the first time. Second, Time could have blown the quote.

Still, on balance I think you're right.

>There is no evidence from his prior work that Fitzgerald is eithere incompetent or partisan.

I don't know the man's past and frankly, I'm not interested enough to look. But if I were interviewing investigators, I don't know he'd get a second interview from what I've seen on this job.

You have to admit the irony that the most productive thing he's done yet is make a massive public blunder.

Hey Tigerhawk after reading it like 3 times maybe you like this better:

No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you must admit that it is ironic that it was Fitzgerald's incompetence [at solving this case] that saved him.

(In spanish I'd be using estar vs ser)

He might not be AN incompetent but he's BEEN incompetent in this case. Fair enough?

I suggest Paul and others reread the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference.on Friday October 28. For those who don't have the time or inclination, FITZGERALD was quite careful to say: "Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. This is probably parsing words but Woodward still a journalist, is more of awriter than a reporter..The giveaway is in sworn a la Hillary Clinton repetitous "I have no recollection."..Then to continue, FITZGERALD said "And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"

Fitzgerald was careful to point out that the "umpire" cannot make an accurate call when he gets sand thrown in his eyes. There should be no surprise to anyone that inconsitent facts will come out.

Paul, Don't be too quick to talk about someone, anyone, "cracking the case." Woodward's source apparently establishes that Libby was not "the first official to mention" Valerie. But it does not necessarily follow that Woodward's source was the first either. Fitzgerald, despite his rather lofty reputation prior to all this foolishness, is looking more like Wile E. Cyote chasing after the Roadrunner with each passing day.

After all, two years later there is nothing to indicate that Wilson was "targeted in retribution" other than Wilson's indignant insistence that this was the case. Now, Joe Wilson may think that he is that important, and that what he has to say is worthy of that level of official attention. But the fact of the matter is that virtually everything alleged by Wilson can be easily refuted without ever leaving the NYT archives.

That Fitzgerald has been so focused on the links between administration personnel and journalists is understandable, but until someone can show that Plame/Wilson actually was covert, actually was covered, and actually was "outed" in an act of political retribution that actually violates the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, this whole cartoon is but one more amusing exercise in futility.

Here's to you, Clara Pellar!

Am I the only one who sees the significance in Woodward saying "he or she"?

Can someone explain to me why it would take 2 years to do nothing. How long does it take to ask maybe 50 people a few questions? How much was Friz payed? Longer it took the more he got payed? Wonder what it would be like if these clods in D.C. was running a business.

It is a business, they are running it and continuing their salaries and making connections (and friends and enemies) and spending out tax dollars on it as well. The point of this business is not to sustain selling a product as much as sustaining your job for as long as possible. Hey, when you're paid by the hour, do you get your job done quick or slowly?

I think that this is all going to be eventually linked to Kevin Bacon.

jhow66 and epador -- nice job ripping him apart. Now, take a look at the actual numbers. In the first 15 months of the investigation, the investigation cost $723,000 (source: GAO). Compare to Starr's investigation, which cost the taxpayers $40M. (Add another $6M to include Fiske's investigation.)

Starr had to deal with an uncooperative administration.

If Fitzgerald's budget tells us anything it's that he isn't being stonewalled at every turn by those he regards as his targets.

I wonder what that could possibly mean?

Starr had to deal with an uncooperative administration.

Right, and the two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice Fitzgerald has handed down so far (with more possibly on the way) suggest that he's received nothing but truthful cooperation from this administration?

If Fitzgerald's budget tells us anything it's that he isn't being stonewalled at every turn by those he regards as his targets.

Wow. That is some impressive spin. So I take it you disagree with Paul, jhow66, and epador about the cost and inefficiency of this ivestigation? This is something you should discuss amongst yourselves; let me know when you have your talking points sorted out.

God, I love the Clinton-Starr comparisons.

This whole investigation is a giant game of he said/she said. It's almost funny.

So, when do we start blaming the evil Zionists?

Earl

Understand that for a prosecuter with Fitzie's street creds, to have spent 2 years investigating he could NOT come out at the end and say "Well, no crime, we can all go home." That's why he went to a grand jury where HE is fully in charge.

The oft quoted line about being able to indict a ham sandwish is not the hyperbole some would have.

Talking about NON-covert Mrs Wilson may have been gossip, but it was no crime. Fitzie was very careful NOT to use the word "covert" in his press conference.

Indeed, if one wants to look at the Libby indictment and screech "deliberate coverup", then I would expect in short order an indictment of Walter Pincus -- Woodward claiming he told Walter of Plame in mid-June and Pincus saying he "doesn't remember" the conversation.

Will it happen? Will the usual suspects that smacked their lips and kept a "Rove indictment watch" pay as much attention to Pincus and Woodward?

Suuurrrre, they will.

And when is Fitzie going to investigate Joe Wilson himself for gossiping about his "CIA analyst" wife several times in the greenroom of FNC in 2002?

Plame says it was'nt MI5!!!

Paul: "I don't know the man's past and frankly, I'm not interested enough to look."

Why does that statement remind me of Incurious George?

Does anyone remember bin Laden? He might be dead, he might be alive - we don't hear about him much nowadays. But just a few years ago I seem to remember he was big news - or did I just imagine that? So if Fitzgerald had some connection to bin Laden, wouldn't a normal person be a bit curious? Obviously not, because Paul isn't interested.

If anyone is interested, Google can lend a helpful hand. Did Fitzgerald do a good job on that one? Or did he do a bad job? I can't answer that, but shouldn't we be interested enough to look?

As for the issue of whether or not Fitzgerald has made a complete mess of all of this, I defer to those who actually understand the law and really know what is going on in Fitzgerald's investigation and have the slightest idea of what is provable and what is not. I don't qualify for any of these. Neither does anyone else I've read here. But some people seem very happy to delude themselves that they they know the answers to everything. Presumably the same people who still insist on things that even Cheney now pretends he never said.

I will give Fitzgerald some slack in that for this case, he really did not understand how information/gossip flows in Washington with the press and officials. He was too trusting of most journalists giving out too many concessions to get them to talk. Now its coming back to bite him.

Hmmm.

Frankly I'm still rather uncertain whether or not it was against the law to reveal Plame's employment at the CIA headquarters. Perhaps I missed it, but nothing I've read so far has made a definitive statement on this.

And the reason why I think it's important is that Fitz should have made that determination first and, if it wasn't against the law, then he should have ended the investigation right then and there.

From my point of view this whole indictment really looks like a prosecutor fishing around until he found something to indict someone over to justify his investigation.

Right, and the two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice Fitzgerald has handed down so far (with more possibly on the way) suggest that he's received nothing but truthful cooperation from this administration?

That's exactly right. Libby and all of the other White House officials turned over all of their notes, memoranda, etc., everything, when asked to do so, and on time. They didn't pull a Clinton by lying, obfuscating, and stonewalling, which dragged things out for an eternity and which ran up the bill something fierce, and they didn't send out the GOP equivalents of Paul Begala and James Carville to conduct a non-stop smear campaign against the special prosecutor with the help of all their sympathizers in the MSM.

OM, I was asking a rhetorical question. Put more simply, my question was "So, a count of perjury implies truthfulness?" And somehow your answer was "yes". Amazing.

Sorry, but "cooperation" which includes lying is not cooperation. Maybe Libby was efficient in his lying (relative to Clinton), and didn't do any stonewalling first before his lies -- fine, I'll give you that. But to commend him for it? That's pretty messed up.

Uh, not so fast, Earl. Just because Fitzgerald claims that Libby's a perjurer means that Libby is a perjurer. That's for Fitz to prove in a court of law. As you may recall, Libby has entered a plea of innocent.

The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration stonewalled and smeared the special prosecutor, while GWB's administration cooperated. That's a world of difference.

Not to barge into this debate but, OK I will, when I heard Fitzgerald make his press announcement (live) I could only think that this guy is a pathological lier.

Liar as in knowingly making a false or misleading statement(s) - making repeated statements about a "CIA Officer" being outed, misleading that it in itself is a criminal offense, that her own neighbors and friends did not even know that she was a "CIA Officer" - what if he had asked her friends and neighbors if they knew that she "worked for the CIA"?

Is there a real difference between working for the CIA as a civil servent and being a "CIA Officer"? Surely Fitzgerald knows this and that most people don't, which is why he mislead with the term "CIA Officer"again and again...

.. but wait, the laws regarding knowingly making a false or misleading statement do not apply to prosecutors nor defending attorneys.

The law can declare that a pig's ear is a silk purse or that the moon is cheese. Fitzgerald will sleep comfortably knowing that he is legally not pigskin nor stinky cheese according to the law.

Follow-Up

Pretty sure that anyone taking the "Oath of Office" is an "Officer" - http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

An open letter to Bob Woodward:

Dear Mr. Woodward,

Your belated revelations concerning your Plame source only serves to undermine the honesty and integrity of the journalistic profession. Once upon a time, journalists actually were interested in pursuing the truth. Now it appears, however, that they serve the truth only when it is convenient or opportunistic.

The American people deserve to know the truth about the Bush Administrations’ outing of Valerie Plame, just as they deserved the truth about Watergate. Yet you decided to play a game with the truth, and with the American people. To what end, sir, to what purpose; did you think there was another "book deal" in the offing?

The truth is only the truth when it sees the light of day. You have intentionally hid it from us and should be ashamed. You have only added to the disillusionment and mistrust of our public and private institutions, and in the long run perhaps the downfall of our very democracy. The truth it seems is indeed the first casualty of war, and you have done your part to kill it.

Regards,

Robert M. Thacker

Atlanta, GA

OM: Where did I say Libby was a perjurer? I simply said there was a count of perjury. I agree with you that perjury is to be decided by the courts (and by this definition, Clinton was not a perjurer). If you're instead saying that I can't say he's a liar because it hasn't been proven in the courts, go back to your previous post...where you call Clinton a liar.

(Also, PETN Sandwich -- OM has been busy implying that no one on the right has tried smearing Fitzgerald. Thanks for the well-timed post.)

Earl,

I am not on "the right" nor am I trying to smear Fitzgerald.

Personally I see a disturbing trend of prosecutor's using their immunity to making false statements while accusing others of doing the same very disturbing - especially where neither the accusor's nor the defendant's statements have anything to do with the original accusation. Clinton, Stewert, Plame, etc...

Calling a pig's ear a pig's ear, despite the law, is not smearing. Did I not make that clear?

Well, you did call him a pathological liar, which is a bit harsh. But yeah, sorry for overgeneralizing. I actually think Fitzgerald is a genuinely good person, my impressions were very different from yours when watching the press conference -- I was very impressed with him.

No matter how much you guys try to make your wackjob suppositions part of the conventional wisdom, it doesn't seem to stick. It's more than a little curious that the only people who claim Wilson told them about his wife in the Fox News green room are right wingers.

And what exactly is Fitzgerald's "massive public blunder?" Saying that Libby was "the first official known to have told a reporter?" Until Hadley or whomever came forward, Libby was the first known. And you may recall, one way to prevent being charged for perjury is to return to the Grand Jury and say "I misspoke before, now I'm here to tell the truth." I don't know any more than anyone else about it, but the possibility certainly exists that the reason Fitzgerald didn't know about Woodward sooner is because his source was lying to him. What a lack of respect so many of you have for this country and our legal process, that you think sdomeone who successfully lies to a prosecutor is the winner, and the prosecutor is incompetenmt.

All that has really changed is when someone says that the administration started outing a covert agent when Libby spilled the beans, administration apologists can triumphantly proclaim "Shows what you know! They were outing a covert agent a full month before that!" Well, hooray for your side.

And Bat One, "After all, two years later there is nothing to indicate that Wilson was "targeted in retribution" other than Wilson's indignant insistence that this was the case." You mean nothing to indicate because Fitzgerald hasn't come to your house and laid out his whole case? Woodward is claiming that he learned about Plame from an administration source. How does this get the administration off the hook? Because Libby wasn't the only one leaking her name, that somehow makes it better? Woodward didn't say he heard it at a cocktail party, or in a Fox News green room, he heard it from the same administration that's accused of leaking her name. I'd say that's even more damning evidence that this went beyond Libby.

And for those of you who don't seem to know the first thing about how this process works (I'm looking at you, jhow66 and epador) Fitzgerald is a US attorney. He's not a special prosecutor. His paycheck doesn't end when this case is over. Get a clue, willya?

It's really getting kind of sad, watching you guys trying to rally as the ship sinks. Do you think every time Custer killed an Indian at Little Big Horn he yelled "Now we've got 'em on the run?"

Ah Chris, you know so little about how government careers work. Damn right he isn't "paid by the hour" but his career is measured by his efforts, and he needs to drag this baby out to get the bullets in his resume to make the next rung.

Shame you have no ear for metaphor. Perhaps you skipped a Mellaril dose or two?

I cannot follow as to Fitzgerald being the failure here. Obviously, a prosecutor cannot reveal what he knows, how it is he knows it, along with sources, etc., until long after whatever the case issue is is over, concluded.

Libby got caught up in the investigative process and isn't being charged with "leaking" anything, but of lying to the Grand Jury, as per his own testimony conflicts. About that, I have always thought Libby is probably as confused as anyone, given the subtleties of just what his "lies" are allged to be, at this point (I don't think he'll be convicted but he had to be charged, is the point).

About Fitzgerald, however, to state the obvious here, he's not talking about much of anything that has to deal with the specifics of what's being and has been investigated. And I also don't see any failures so far, since there's not a complete picture, a full availability, of information to be had by us public persons and that includes the press, for what they're worth.

I THINK -- all told here -- Wilson's the guy and his wife's the, um, guy also, as to responsible parties and that Woodward is also. They've done as much damage as possible to anyone and everyone affiliated with and in the Bush Administration (which has undoubtedly been the point) and in Woodward's case, to avoid being answerable, being identified, for lack of a better term here. The Wilsons have been just far too sloppy to be respectable as to any sense of privacy about either of them, what they do, who they do it for, and in that, because of that, I think they've very well called FIRE in a movie theater just to see who they can say did it when the police show up and try to arrest someone responsible.

Fitzgerald seems to be a stand up guy and he certainly makes for a great press conference. I think this is, if anything ever was/is, a case where it can be said, is: "developing."

IS there even "a leak"? All that's looking solid about that is that Woodward has been talking to someone. That could be Mrs. Wilson herself, it could be Mary Matalin, it could be Hillary Clinton. I'd lay money on the latter. Because Mr. Wilson was going to find the Bush Administration (specifically, Karl Rove) responsible for Wilson's dirty socks, one way or another. At this point, I can't imagine a more smarmy, untrustworthy person than Joe Wilson. So blame him, and give Fitzgerald the benefit of the doubt.

One thing I thing some of us CAN count on at this stage is that the liberal media will never, NEVER, apologize or clarify about Karl Rove. They just cannot do it. So, they won't.

Chris: even high profile liberal media now writes with assurity that there was no exposure of Mrs. Wilson's (Plame's) "secret agent" status because her condition of employment with the CIA do not qualify under the