Nothing Aside

Promoting The Leakers

So Cheney has lost his Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby to a five count indictment.  Ouch.  That hurts.  It hurts especially bad because Libby filled several roles in the Vice President's office.  In addition to being Cheney's Chief of Staff, he was also his National Security Advisor.  With Libby gone, Cheney had to find someone who could take over Libby's duties.  You might think that he would clean up his operation a bit and bring in someone new, fresh and untainted by the current leak investigation.  And of course you would be wrong:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney, moving swiftly to replace an indicted aide, on Monday named attorney David Addington as his chief of staff and John Hannah as his national security adviser.

Both positions had been filled by I. Lewis Libby, who resigned Friday when he was indicted on perjury and other charges in a 22-month investigation of the unmasking of an undercover CIA officer.

Addington has been Cheney's counsel and Hannah has been his deputy national security adviser.

So who are these guys?  Why are Addington and Hannah bad picks?  Because they are probably the two people most involved in the leak case of anyone in the Vice President's office.  By promoting these two guys, Cheney is essentially saying "Come and get me.  I dare you." 

Just read this account of Addington.  He's more tangled up in this leak mess than just about anyone else:

Addington was deeply immersed in the White House damage-control campaign to deflect criticism that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to administration and congressional sources.

Moreover, as a pivotal member of the vice president's office, Addington also attended strategy sessions in 2003 on how to discredit Wilson when the former ambassador publicly charged that the Bush administration misled the country in pushing its case for war, according to attorneys in the CIA leak probe.

Further, Addington played a leading role in 2004 on behalf of the Bush administration when it refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee documents from Libby's office on the alleged misuse of intelligence information regarding Iraq.

...

According to the grand jury indictment, Libby met with Addington "in an anteroom outside the Vice President's office." The indictment did not name Addington, but identified him as "Counsel to Vice President." The indictment says that Libby asked Addington, "in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas mission."

The indictment does not say what actions, if any, Addington took to learn more about Plame's CIA employment.

Four days after the Libby-Miller breakfast and Libby's discussion with Addington, Libby gave Miller additional information on Wilson and Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Miller's testimony.

If Libby stands trial, it appears all but certain that Addington will be a crucial witness against Libby, according to attorneys involved in the case. That is because the indictment charges that Libby told a "fictitious" account to the grand jury that he only learned of Plame's CIA employment from journalists, rather than from classified information.

The indictment charges that Libby committed perjury by testifying to the grand jury that he only first learned of Plame's CIA employment from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, and that Russert told him that the information about Plame had been common knowledge for some time. Russert, however, testified to the grand jury that he never told Libby about Plame.

Instead, the indictment charges, Libby learned about Plame and Plame's possible role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission from government officials: an undersecretary of state; a CIA officer who regularly briefed Libby on national security issues; an unidentified "senior CIA officer"; and Vice President Cheney himself.

Libby in turned shared that information with a number of officials in the vice president's office, according to the indictment: Addington; John Hannah, the deputy national security advisor; and Catherine Martin, then Cheney's press secretary.

It would not have been inappropriate for the various officials to have learned of Plame's identity as a CIA officer and discussed it among themselves, as long as they did not disclose the information outside of government circles, as Libby allegedly did, according to Fitzgerald's indictment.

The role of Addington differs from that of the other officials, however, in that it is the only known instance in which Libby tried to get a member of the vice president's office to find out additional information about Plame, according to the indictment.

If this thing blows open any further, I see the makings of a conspiracy charge.  But here is the real meat of why Addington's promotion to Libby's position is nothing more than a big screw you to investigators and all Americans who want to know why national security was threatened in order to rub out a political opponent:

Addington regularly attended detailed strategy sessions with Libby and other members of the vice president's staff to discuss how they might discredit Wilson and blunt his allegations that the White House misrepresented information on the Niger mission, according to government officials with detailed knowledge of those meetings. During those discussions, Addington and others discussed the possibility of selectively releasing classified information to Congress that would discredit Wilson, according to the same sources.

At the same time, Addington worked with Libby and Cheney in a broader effort to blunt congressional criticism that the administration selectively used intelligence information, and misrepresented other information, to make the case to go to war. In that instance, Addington played a key role in withholding information from Congress. It was his involvement in that effort that has drawn congressional ire in recent days.

And just for good measure, there's this:

During confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales to be attorney general, it was revealed that Addington helped draft the White House memo that concluded that the Geneva Convention against torture did not apply to prisoners captured in the war on terror. The memo declared that terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

By promoting Addington, Cheney is completely disregarding any and all calls for an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.  It makes sense that Cheney wouldn't want to admit that his office went over the line, but this move essentially says, "We went over the line, and we'll do it again."

And what about Hannah?  He is the elusive connection between the offices of the Vice President and the office of John Bolton when he was head of arms control at State.  He could not possibly be more entwined in this story than he is. 

Cheney is challenging the investigator to come after him.  He blatantly does not care about national security if he is rewarding national security crimes with promotion. 

And Your Next Supreme Court Justice Is...

Scalito.  Samuel Alito, who has been a U.S. Appeals Court judge since 1990 when he was elevated to that post by George H. W. Bush, is exactly what the right has been looking for.  Early word is that he shares Justice Scalia's tough, and frankly cold, judicial philosophy but does so without badgering and yelling at lawyers who appear before him.  We'll have to see how acceptable this guy is, but it sure looks like he's more than qualified for the post.  Of course, just about anyone nominated after Miers would look extremely qualified.

More later...

Indictments

Finally, the shoes start dropping.  I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted by a federal Grand Jury on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. 

If you read the indictment or if you listened to Patrick Fitzgerald lay out the evidence against Libby, it sounds pretty cut and dry that Libby is guilty of at least some of these charges, if not all.  Yes, there is no charge relating directly to the original inquiry into the leaking of classified information concerning Valerie Plame, but as Fitzgerald said in his horrifically convoluded baseball analogy, an impediment to the investigation shows that something fishy is going on as well.  Why would Libby tell the Grand Jury that he had gotten his information about Plame from two reporters if he had actually gotten it from the Vice President?  There should be no reason to lie about that.  After all, it is perfectly legal for two government officials with high clearance levels to discuss classified information.  Why not admit that the info came from Cheney?

The other area of speculation and rumor that has been going around lately is that Karl Rove would be indicted as well.  He managed to avoid any charge today, though apparently the investigation will continue.  My hunch is that Rove will escape the ax, probably thanks to his last minute testimony of a few weeks ago where he may have cleared up some discrepencies in his previous testimony.  We'll wait and see on Rove.

The area that I am most interested in, and the one that I haven't seen get a lot of play in the major newspapers, is the connection in all this to the State Department's Office of Arms Control and International Security.  That office was run, until a few months ago, by Undersecretary of State John Bolton.  Yes, that John Bolton.

Why is this an interesting angle to the story?

According to the Times account, Cheney told Libby the covert name of the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. diplomat who had publicly alleged that the administration had mishandled of intelligence relating to Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.

But several former and serving U.S. intelligence officials strongly disputed this.  "That is simply not accurate," a very former senior CIA official told this repoter. "Libby's notes on this are misleading and inaccurate or both."

This source, supported by three others, alleged that it was a telephone call from the Department of State that first gave Libby the name of Plame.

The name of the caller? No one is sure. But these sources said that the call defintely came from the State Department office of John Bolton, then the arms control chief of the department.

These same sources alleged that two employees of Bolton, David Wurmser, a virullent pro-war hawk, first told Libby that Valerie Plame had sent Wilson to Niger to attempt to discredit the administration's line on Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.

These same intelligence sources alleged that Wurmser, as Bolton's special assistant, got his knowledge of Plame's classified identity from a colleague in his office, Frederick Fleitz, a CIA officer detailed to Bolton's office from the agency who worked in the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINIPAC).

WINIPAC.  That, of course, is where Plame was working at the time of her outing. 

This story seems entirely plausible to me.  It also adds a giant new wrinkle to the story if Bolton or his former office are involved.  Let's not forget that among Judy Miller's visitors while in prison was Bolton himself.  Everyone was confused by this visit at the time, but perhaps it makes a bit more sense now.  Was Bolton checking to make sure he wasn't the source that Miller was in jail for?  And since it was Libby whom she was in jail to protect, and Libby was not the person who first told Miller Plame's (Flame) name, could it be that Bolton or either Wurmser or Fleitz was her original source (the one Miller conveniently could not remember in her Grand Jury testimony)?  Was it someone in Bolton's office that was the original leaker, the one who committed the original crime?

This story is just getting started, folks.

Chicago Wins One!

Chicago White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

Congratulations to the South Siders for their first World Series title since 1917.  Chicago has had quite a drought.  What a great cap to an incredible season.

White Sox Up 2-0

The White Sox are now up 2-0 in the World Series.  I never thought I'd write that, but it's true.  Things are looking good for the South Siders.  Now they head to Houston and could wrap things up by Wednesday if all goes well.  The series hasn't been without a bit of controversy (though not as much as the ALCS) but Game 2 had its moments.  Since I'm a Cubs fan, I'll defer to my friend Mike, a Sox fan, on a good analysis of the game and where the series stands now:

For the next couple of days while the teams travel to Houston, all the fans and pundits will be talking about the Jermaine Dye HBP in the seventh inning. Yes, the pitch didn't actually hit him. Who knows what would have happened with another 3-2 pitch to Dye? (By the way, Bagwell or Biggio would have been much more successful at getting hit by that pitch. They do it like it's their job--wait, intentionally getting hit by pitches is their job.) Hell, part of baseball is using subtle means to sell your case to the umpire, be it a catcher "framing" pitches, a runner calling for time after a close play at a base, a fielder holding up the ball after a close tag, or a batter hinting at a step toward first after a close pitch on a three-ball count. Should Dye have turned around and said, "No, Mr. Umpire, I didn't actually get hit. I think I'll decline the free trip to first that you just awarded me"? No, just the same way the Astros first basement didn't need to tell the umpire, "No, Iguchi was safe getting back on that pickoff attempt. In fact, Petitte balked like crazy--Iguchi should be awarded second base."

Now they're off to Houston, where hopefully my Sox can finish off the 'Stros in that ridiculous ballpark with a superfluous man-made hill, a silly flagpole, a Little League-distance left-field home run wall, an electric current-filled outfield fence, and an alligator-laden moat behind the warning track.

Review: Power And The Idealists, By Paul Berman

I haven't made a habit of pointing out the various books and albums on my list of recommendations in the right column, but for Paul Berman's Power and the Idealists I'll make an exception.  After reading Berman's Terror and Liberalism when it came out in 2003, I became a fan.  His expertise is documenting the intellectual path of liberal-leftist thought and in Terror and Liberalism he took a look at the war on terror through that prism.  He is a liberal hawk through and through, and his perspective on our battle against al-Qaeda and what we're up against globally was influential in how I saw the Iraq War.  From the beginning I was troubled that liberals were failing to see the human suffering that was happening in Iraq and that their opposition to the war was something of an acceptance that nothing should be done about it.  It is one thing to oppose military intervention if it is used as a first tool of state interaction, but entirely another when war is opposed regardless of its potential for doing good.  At some point pacifism descends into de facto support of totalitarianism, and it seemed as though many on the anti-war left ignored this moral dilemma.

In Power and the Idealists, Berman dives into the intellectual brush of the leftism of the 1960s and 1970s.  He follows the career (is that really the best word?) of Joschka Fischer, a man who sharpened his political teeth in the leftist demonstrations and activism of the 1960s and who eventually evolved into a tremendously popular Green party leader and German Foreign Minister from 1998 to present.  Fischer and his ideological partners (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Bernard Kouchner, etc.) in crime (sometimes quite literally) are examined by Berman in an effort to see just how the ideas and idealism of the "68ers" developed as new crises and new power structures emerged through the present day.  How, for instance, could Fischer, as a tried and true leftist of the 1960s anti-establishment, anti-NATO generation support (and campaign for, no less) the U.S.-led NATO bombing of Kosovo in 1999 as German Foreign Minister?  What had gone wrong (or right) in his mind? 

Extended to the present day, how could leftists of the 68ers generation find the ideological footing to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq?  While Fischer, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, was against the war, Kouchner was for it.  They both aired their misgivings about the American approach to the war (most of which have turned out to be quite prescient) but had come out on opposite sides of the argument.  To Kouchner the leftism of the 68ers generation was only effective if it was active.  How could leftists sit by, he asked, and watch totalitarianism destroy lives?  It was Kouchner who took his ideology and acted on it, founding Doctors Without Borders in 1971. 

Many on the left, however, simply continued to see a war carried out by the United States as they had for decades: as a war of imperialism and domination.  This was not how Fischer reacted, for his response as German Foreign Minister was one of misgiving about the method of ending Saddam's regime not an utter contempt for power, but it was this response that became firmly planted in the left that we saw oppose the Iraq War from the earliest days.  Amid the chatter of "Free Mumia!" and "No Blood For Oil!", were signs equating Bush with Adolph Hitler.  But wasn't it leftist-liberalism that had defeated Nazism and had stood up against totalitarianism?  Whatever happened to that sentiment?

Berman's Power and the Idealists does its best to answer these questions.  How could leftists, be they working German socialists, French student Maoists or radicals of the various leftist persuasions of that era, how could they realize their own transformation and adapt to realities of a new century while staying true to their founding ideology?  How can one be both against The Man, and be The Man?  How, quite simply, can one use power and still be an idealist?

Misplaced Fiscal Priorities

I'm all for a balanced budget, but not at the expense of the poor and disabled.  It seems that fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party have finally found their backbone and are now willing to speak up about the out of control increase in the budget deficit.  Or no, let me say that again in a way that Republicans will understand: fiscal conservatives are finally willing to speak up about the out of control spending by the federal government. 

What's the difference in those two statements?  One acknowledges that a balanced budget requires cuts to spending as well as the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy.  The other, which these Republicans favor, only sees spending  on programs for the least fortunate as the problem.

House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power.

Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs. Only last month, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) and other GOP leaders quashed demands within their party for budget cuts to pay for the soaring cost of hurricane relief.

I'm in favor of cutting farm subsidies in a controlled and drawn out manner.  It is a reality of our globalized economy that farming can be done cheaper elsewhere.  Not all farming of course, but a good portion of it.

But cuts to health care for the poor and food stamps?  Is that compassionate conservativism? 

I find it interesting that the impetus for this new wave of fiscal conservativism was Hurricane Katrina.  It took a domestic disaster and a federal response to it to make Republican fiscal conservatives realize that there was no money left.  Foreign wars with no end in sight were no matter, but the prospect of spending a lesser sum on Americans right here at home appalled Republicans.  How dare we spend federal dollars on helping American citizens in Louisiana find a new home when we could be spending that money to rebuild a blown up road in Fallujah.  Perhaps one day these Republican fiscal conservatives will realize this hypocrisy.

What Rivalry?

It's articles like this that make me all the more excited that Reason #2 on my Reasons Cubs Fans Should Cheer For The White Sox This Post-Season will become a reality.   The article, entitled "Sox Can Finish What Cubs Merely Started," is the exact reason why the White Sox are ignored by the greater half of Chicago.  White Sox fans can insist that there is a massive rivalry between the Cubs and the White Sox, but it simply isn't true.  Most Cubs fans I know couldn't care less what happens with the White Sox.  They will be better just about every year, but will still be #2 in Chicago.  For Sox fans, this simple fact has defined their cult following of blue-collar South Siders.  It's frustration and exasperation that they will never be as popular as the Cubs that drives Sox fans crazy and makes them insist that their hatred of the Cubs is because of a "rivalry".  It's no rivalry.  It's jealousy plain and simple.  Here's how Mike Bauman, the author of this piece sees things from his perch on the South side:

The animosity between White Sox fans and Cubs fans is real and has been real since shortly after Mrs. O'Leary's cow started The Fire. It is something like the Hatfields and the McCoys, but with less gunfire. The ill will has not been eased by the need to remain eternally patient, that is shared by both fan bases.

Now, it is deeply ironic that, after so much World Series waiting on both sides of the Windy City, both teams, within a mere two years, have had a 3-1 lead in a League Championship Series. This is why the whole thing would be even sweeter than usual for Sox fans, because of what happened to that 3-1 Cubs lead.

Hatfields and McCoys!  Ha!  There simply isn't that kind of animosity from Cubs fans because they could care less about the White Sox.  After all, Wrigley will still sell out every regular season game, and U.S. Cellular Field will be lucky to sell out when the Yankees show up.  It's apathy from the Cubs fans, and jealousy from White Sox fans.  A rivalry there is not. 

But let's look at this article anyway: Bauman is already bragging that the White Sox have accomplished more than the Cubs.  And he's doing it at the same 3-1 point in a League Championship Series that the Cubs were in in 2003.  If he can't even wait until the White Sox surpass the accomplishments of the Cubs, I'm looking forward to the exasperation on his and every other White Sox fan's face when they win the World Series and no one comes to their parade through the streets of Chicago. 

So carry on White Sox fans.  Be vengeful about your success.  Go ahead, win a World Series.  I'll be cheering for you.  Just don't expect to see me (or anyone else) at the band shell in Grant Park for your victory party.

Plamegate Heats Up With Miller's Account

The latest from the Plame leak investigation is out, and boy is it juicy.  First, there is the absurdly long article by The Times reporters documenting the inside story of Judy Miller and her case as seen and dealt with by the top editors and staff at The Times.  It is interesting if you've been following the case in detail as I have tried to do and if you have an hour or so to digest the rather complicated happenings of Judy Miller, I. Lewis Libby, their lawyers and the various editors of The Times.

But the real damning meat of this case comes from Miller herself.  Based on Miller's account of things I can't see how "Scooter" Libby won't get indicted.  Here are a few key sections.  First is this paragraph detailing where the prosecutor's case is headed:

During my testimony on Sept. 30 and Oct. 12, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, asked me whether Mr. Libby had shared classified information with me during our several encounters before Mr. Novak's article. He also asked whether I thought Mr. Libby had tried to shape my testimony through a letter he sent to me in jail last month. And Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Cheney had known what his chief aide was doing and saying.

So first, we're looking at the initial leak charge.  From what I've heard the bar for this charge is quite high and seems unlikely to appear.  Then we're looking at an obstruction of justice charge against Libby.  That seems like the most likely outcome, along with conspiracy.  Then, there is the possibility of some involvement by the Vice President.  This seems like it would be too good to be true, but who knows really.

Here is Miller's account from Jule 23, 2003 - several weeks before Robert Novak's column revealing Valerie Plame's name:

My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

This claim that Cheney didn't know who Joe Wilson was and therefore Wilson's claims are irrelevant, is one that administration defenders trot out fairly often.  But what's to it?  Cheney didn't have to know Wilson.  Cheney wanted more facts, the CIA was tasked with getting more facts, and Wilson was the one who was chosen to go about checking on some facts in Niger.  The Vice President shouldn't be in the position of picking, let alone knowing, the person who does all his research.  That's why he has an intelligence community working for him. 

But continuing on:

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

What was evident, I told the grand jury, was Mr. Libby's anger that Mr. Bush might have made inaccurate statements because the C.I.A. failed to share doubts about the Iraq intelligence.

"No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President,' " he said, according to my notes.

It seems pretty clear that there was an atmosphere in the White House that was just not going to listen to someone who would stand up to the President and say such a thing.  For Libby to suggest that doubters were free to air their thoughts proves that he is either coy by half or blissfully ignorant of the fact that he is a part of an atmosphere that bred timidity among those who doubted the administration's Iraq policy.

Miller and Libby met a second time, July 8, 2003:

Our meeting, which lasted about two hours, took place over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I almost certainly began this interview by asking about Mr. Wilson's essay, which appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby. As I recall, Mr. Libby asserted that the essay was inaccurate.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

Now why, why, why would Libby ask to be attributed as a "former Hill staffer"?  Maybe this is commonplace, but it also strikes me as suspicious in light of what else went on in that meeting:

At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.

I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

This is the meat of the case.  Did Libby knowingly release the details of Plame's professional status?  While it seems as though Libby never explicitly said that Plame was an operative, and indeed Miller assumed she wasn't by way of this detail, why did it come up in the first place?  Why was she mentioned?  And why use her agency name if the issue of concern to Libby and others was the fact that she was Joe Wilson's wife?  All of this seems unnecessary, and throws more light on the motives of Libby.

Here is where Miller get's sloppy though - and on the most important point no less:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred.

This is just about the most important point there is - who told her the name in the first place - and Miller "could not recall."  Nonsense, I say.  Nevertheless, Libby seems to have divulged this information as well, even if Miller's notes indicate that he wasn't the first person she heard this from.

Finally, there is the recent letter from Libby to Miller releasing her from her confidentiality (or re-releasing her as Libby would contend).  This part is straight out of a spy novel:

Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

Huh?  A little poetry from Libby, or a coded message of some sort?  And the cowboy hat and sunglasses in Wyoming bit?  There's an overload of intrigue in this. 

Keep an eye on how this all develops in the coming days.  Indictments seem certain, though for whom and when still remain open to speculation.

Three Reasons Cubs Fans Should Cheer For The White Sox This Post-Season

What a game.

I just watched Game 2 of the ALCS between the Angels and the White Sox.  An exciting ending, but certainly one of the most blown calls in recent playoff history.  While replays of the disputed "out" are inconclusive, it seems that the umps simply didn't have control of the game and didn't make decisions when decisions were needed.  As a result they let A. J. Pierzynski dictate the outcome of a "dropped third strike" and with it, the ballgame.  I'll direct you over to my friend Mike, who is actually a White Sox fan, to give you the details and a few predictions. 

But let me explain why I'm even bothering with this White Sox game, series and post-season in general.  There are three reasons why, as a Cubs fan, I am going to grudgingly cheer for the White Sox this year:

1. The Boston Red Sox won their first World Series after a short 86 year dry spell last year.  They had the third longest championship drought in the major league, dating back to 1918.  The second longest championship gap belongs to the White Sox, who haven't won a title since 1917.  And of course, the longest period of championship impotence belongs to my Cubs, losers since 1908.  Now, if the White Sox were to break their "curse" after the Red Sox broke their "curse" last year, surely next year would be the year that the Cubs would break The Curse.  The two data point trend line would suggest as much. 
2. The White Sox franchise is based around institutionalized resentment of everything and anything Cubs.  When you go to a White Sox game it's hard to find a vendor outside the park who sells any pro-Sox gear.  Instead every vendor tries to hawk you a shirt with slogans like "Wrigley Field: World's Largest Gay Bar" or "Cubs Suck."  The White Sox fan base is so focused on resenting the popularity of the Cubs that they forget to give their team its own identity.  Perhaps that's why "The Cell" never sells out except when there is a Cubs-White Sox series or when the Yankees come to town.  My point though, is this: just imagine the apopolectic outrage that will result when, after the White Sox win their first title in 88 years, their rivals to the north are still the most popular ticket in town and the upper deck of "The Cell" remains sparsely inhabited on most nights.  For years the White Sox identity has been rooted in hating the Cubs for getting all of Chicago's attention while losing, while the Sox come close to the playoffs nearly every year and can't muster a decent fan base.  So as a Cubs fan, I'm rooting for a White Sox title just so I can see the gasps of "What do we gotta do around here to get some attention?!?" from White Sox fans.
3. Perhaps this is the most plausible reason to cheer on the White Sox even if you're a Cubs fan: the World Series could very well be a White Sox/Cardinals finale.  What a nightmare for Cubs fans.  When it comes down to it though, a Cardinals title would be just about the worst thing that could happen.  We'd have to hear about it every time the National League Central division was mentioned.  "The defending champion St. Louis Cardinals..." just has an awful ring to it if you're a true Cubs fan.  Plus, in combination with items #1 and #2, the lesser of two evils has to be the White Sox.

So... uh, I guess, um... go White Sox?