Nothing Aside

Jaafari Stays On As Iraqi Prime Minister

This latest political news from Iraq is certainly disappointing.  Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current interim prime minister has been selected to remain in that post in the first perminent government of Iraq - a four year government.  He beat out Adel Abdul Mahdi, the current vice president and fellow Shiite, by an internal vote of 64-63. 

This is unfortunate on several counts.  First, Jaafari's interim government has been widely seen as ineffective and a bit corrupt.  Second, he won this vote only through the full support of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who called for and inspired the bloody 2004 Shiite insurgency against American forces.  Third, I attended a speech by Mahdi when he visited CSIS last fall and found him impressive.  He is an economist by training and was seen by many as an ideal choice for prime minister since he can more easily garner support from Kurdish and Sunni groups. 

On all those measures, it seems there is a tough road ahead for Iraq under a Jaafari government, not least of which is how much the four year government will be dependent on a radical cleric for its most basic support.

Bin Laden Returns

After 13 months without an public presence, Osama bin Laden has again made an appearance in a tape in which he says that al-Qaeda is winning in Iraq and, oddly, offers a "truce" to the United States.  According to bin Laden, the lack of attacks in the United States is not because of anything we are doing to beef up security, but because they just haven't chosen to attack at this time.  To which I say, "yeah, right."  Terrorists don't sit on operations that could be successful.  The risk of being caught before the attack could be carried out would be too great.  Essentially bin Laden is trying to keep up the appearance that he could order an attack at will.  He would have done so by now (assuming he has any contact with anyone at this point), so we know this argument is nonsense.

On the "truce" comment, again, what is he getting at?  Is it a sign of weakness that he wants the U.S. to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and everything will be just fine and he'll leave us alone?  Does he really think we're that stupid? 

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars -- which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

For someone who has in the past said that victory will only come when the "crusaders and zionists" are gone for good, the suggestion of co-existance is totally absurd.  And he should know this much. 

Apparently bin Laden's voice was weaker and less dominant, perhaps as a result of living in the border regions of Pakistan while on dialysis.  One way or another, bin Laden is on the decline.  And that is always a good thing.

#2 Down? Dr. Evil Is Next

ABCNews is reporting that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command and its most vocal representative these days, may have been killed by a CIA drone in the border region of Pakistan.  Let's hope that these reports turn out to be true.  We haven't seen a video from bin Laden in more than a year and instead have seen al-Zawahiri taking the lead.  No one really knows why this is - bin Laden may be too remote to really lead al-Qaeda, he may be dead, or something else - but it seems that a dead al-Zawahiri would be a boon to the war on terrorism.  Certainly al-Qaeda has moved on to become more than just its leaders, but if the reports of his death prove accurate, this would be a huge step forward against terrorism - unlike our current efforts in the terrorist factory that is Iraq.

**UPDATE**: It seems that we may not have gotten al-Zawahiri.  Drat.  Pakistan of course is declaring its outrage for this attack on Pakistani territory, but they knew this was going on.  Hopefully we'll get him, and bin Laden, next time.

Fix Iraq, Win A Billion Dollars

This must be proof that we're doing well in Iraq, right?  If you have a plan for stabilizing the country, the State Department will pay you $1.02 billion.  I can't even make this stuff up.

The grant is called the Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI) and it is being offered by the U.S. Agency for International Development.  Here's what it takes to become a billionaire:

The United States Agency for International Development is seeking applications for an Assistance Agreement from qualified sources to design and implement a social and economic stabilization program impacting ten Strategic Cities, identified by the United States Government as critical to the defeat of the Insurgency in Iraq. The number of Strategic Cities may expand or contract over time. USAID plans to provide approximately $1,020,000,000 over two years to meet the objectives of the Program. An additional option year may be considered amounting to $300 million at the discretion of USAID. Funds are not yet available for this program.

That last line might be the best of them all.  Not only are we lacking a plan for stabilizing ten (!) cities two years after Mission Accomplished, and offering more than a billion dollars for someone else to come up with such a plan, we don't even have the funds available.  To recap: no plan, no in-house creativity, no cash.  This is Bush administration bureaucracy at its very best.

Declare Victory and Come Home?

On Wednesday President Bush will give a speech about our current situation in Iraq.  Though he has been giving the same speech about staying the course and "we'll stand down when Iraqis stand up", expect this speech to be a bit different.  Though they will never admit it, Bush administration officials must recognize that Rep. Murtha's comments about redeploying our troops have had an effect on the debate about Iraq.  Suddenly we have seen a shift from some administration officials about when that "stand down when Iraqis stand up" might happen.  Seemingly, it is when American public opinion says so and has little to do with the actual readiness of Iraqi security forces.  Recent comments by Secretary Rice and others have chipped away at the notion that we will really stay until the situation improves.  From the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq

By Paul Richter and Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.

In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

Now it should be clear to all that Iraqi forces have not made miraculous strides in the last few weeks.  To suggest otherwise is nonsense.  The Iraqi security forces are, for the most part, just as inept as they were a few months ago when the Bush administration was saying that we were in it for the long haul and wouldn't abandon the Iraqi people.  Suddenly, however, we're declaring Iraq ready to go, and we're doing so right when political dissent against the war has been coming from all sides.  Very convenient.

And all of this is unfortunate.  Leaving now would be bad for America's security image in the world (the weakening of which precipitated our battle against terrorism in the first place), and would be bad for the Iraqi people since security forces are simply not ready to take over.  On the other hand, there is something to be said for the notion that our withdrawal would make the insurgency wither substantially, as all groups in Iraq seem to agree that the coalition presence is the major impetus for violence and that lacking an American target, the terrorists would quickly be seen for what they are: murderers and criminals. 

That is not to say that things would work themselves out if we left, for a sectarian power grab conflict (a nice phrase for a low-level civil war) would undoubtedly erupt, but a lack of foreign targets in Iraq would quickly change the dynamics of good versus bad in Iraq.  Some clarity in that regard, for the Iraqi people, would do the country some good.  If Iraqis hate the terrorists but resent the American presence, they will be silent.  If they have only the terrorists to resist, I think we would see results.

Again, all of this is an unfortunate outgrowth of a poorly implemented plan for remaking the Middle East.  The Neocon plan for spreading democracy through the Middle East was and is a noble one that I support, but its admirable vision has been tarnished by a Bush administration which almost willfully chose to undermine the success of that vision through poor implementation.  We needed more troops from the outset, but now find ourselves stuck with not enough boots on the ground to win, and just enough not to lose.  That is not a tenable position for our military.  On that account, Murtha is right to call for a redeployment of forces.

So what are we left with?  We have an Iraq that hasn't improved much in the past few months, which still lacks an adequate state security apparatus, and suddenly the Bush administration has decided that since it is losing ground across the political spectrum, we can just declare victory and come home.  That is a weak option, but among our feeble choices, it may unfortunately be our best.

The Nuclear Laptop and Our Credibility Gap

There is a fascinating article in Sunday's New York Times about the current intelligence evidence against Iran and it's claims of having a peaceful nuclear program.  It is fascinating on two fronts.  First, there are the actual facts and figures of the intelligence and the descriptions of Iran's activities.  Second, there is the section detailing how frayed America's reputation for quality intelligence is after the Iraq war claims turned out to be so wrong. 

But as to the first part: it seems that a good portion of American intelligence related to Iran is coming from an intercepted laptop computer full of data related to weaponized nuclear development.

The computer contained studies for crucial features of a nuclear warhead, said European and American officials who had examined the material, including a telltale sphere of detonators to trigger an atomic explosion. The documents specified a blast roughly 2,000 feet above a target - considered a prime altitude for a nuclear detonation.

...

In August 2003, agency inspectors discovered traces of uranium concentrated to the high levels necessary for a bomb, rather than the low levels for a power-producing reactor. Some of the uranium was shown to have arrived in Iran on nuclear equipment purchased from Pakistan, but a European diplomat disclosed that the origin of the rest was still a mystery.

...

If Iran hid parts of its atomic program, it boldly displayed its missiles. And in August 2004, it conducted a test that deepened suspicions that it was at work on a nuclear warhead.

Tehran test-fired an upgraded version of the Shahab - shooting star in Persian - in a flight that featured the first appearance of an advanced nose cone made up of three distinct shapes. Missile experts noted that such triconic nose cones have great range, accuracy and stability in flight, but less payload space. Therefore, experts say, they have typically been used to carry nuclear arms.

Interesting.  Why does Iran need such missiles?  Unless there is a dual-purpose use that isn't being mentioned in this article, there seems to be no good explanation that is consistent with Iran's claims that it is not intent on producing nuclear weapons. 

Now, let's turn to America's credibility on all this.  Where has the Iraq war left us in the eyes of other nations?

doubts about the intelligence persist among some foreign analysts. In part, that is because American officials, citing the need to protect their source, have largely refused to provide details of the origins of the laptop computer beyond saying that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a longtime contact in Iran. Moreover, this chapter in the confrontation with Iran is infused with the memory of the faulty intelligence on Iraq's unconventional arms. In this atmosphere, though few countries are willing to believe Iran's denials about nuclear arms, few are willing to accept the United States' weapons intelligence without question.

"I can fabricate that data," a senior European diplomat said of the documents. "It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt."

"Few are willing to accept the United States' weapons intelligence without question."  That is most certainly a bad thing.  If we can't convince our allies (and that's who we are talking about here: France, Britain, Germany, etc.) without having to show them everything we have taken a major step backward.  There used to be a day when an American president could simply say that he had the intel and that would be good enough for our allies (see Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis), but the Iraq war has destroyed that trust.  Here's more:

In fact, some nations that were skeptical of the intelligence on Iraq - including France and Germany - are deeply concerned about what the warhead discovery could portend, according to several officials. But the Bush administration, seeming to understand the depth of its credibility problem, is only talking about the laptop computer and its contents in secret briefings, more than a dozen so far. And even while President Bush is defending his pronouncements before the war about Iraq's unconventional weapons, he has never publicly referred to the Iran documents.

...

Officials said scientists at the American weapons labs, as well as foreign analysts, had examined the documents for signs of fraud. It was a particular concern given the fake documents that emerged several years ago purporting to show that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Officials said they found the warhead documents, written in Persian, convincing because of their consistency and technical accuracy and because they showed a progression of developmental work from 2001 to early 2004.

As a measure of the skepticism the Bush administration faces, officials said the American ambassador to the international atomic agency, Gregory L. Schulte, was urging other countries to consult with his French counterpart. "On Iraq we disagreed, and on Iran we completely agree," a senior State Department official said. "That gets attention."

This is what we're reduced to now.  We have to get the French to sign off on our intelligence to make it legitimate in the eyes of our allies.  Far from triumphing over the French as many a commentator on Fox News would like us to do, we have now brought the French to the exact position of unearned importance that they desire.  That plan certainly backfired.

Analysts from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory wrote the briefing paper for the State Department, which distributed it widely. In graphic detail, the paper offers a tour of the previously hidden sites, saying, for instance, that a "dummy" building at the centrifuge plant in Natanz hides a secret entrance ramp to an underground factory.

The briefing asserted that Iran did not have enough proven uranium reserves to fuel its nuclear power program beyond 2010. But it does have enough uranium, the report added, "to give Iran a significant number of nuclear weapons."

The briefing landed with something of a thud. Some officials found its arguments superficial and inconclusive. "Yeah, so what?" said one European expert who heard the briefing. "How do you know what you're shown on a slide is true given past experience?"

Those mobile biological weapons labs from Colin Powell's U.N. speech will haunt us for a while.  Our evidence is no longer good enough to stand on its own two feet, even when our allies agree with the justification for our argument.  That demonstrates just how far we have fallen.

We need to recover our credibility.  If anything, this loss of credibility could limit our ability to keep America safe.  The more hoops we have to jump through to show that we have solid intelligence and not another "Curveball", the more we risk our national security.  We need to fix this credibility gap, and we need to do so with some urgency.

Fix Mistakes, Move Forward

One of the things about this Iraq debate and the administration's use and misuse of intelligence to take the country to war is the issue of truth and trustworthiness.  The Bush administration has betrayed the trust of the American people - not in a direct and overtly malicious way, but through the on-going refusal to admit glaringly obvious mistakes.  When no WMD turned up in Iraq the administration bulldozed ahead without admitting that their pre-war intelligence was wrong, and in some cases intentionally so.  While Andrew Sullivan is right here that the administration didn't go out of its way to cultivate faulty intelligence to fit its desired policy (overthrowing Saddam) and therefore lie to the American people, they weren't exactly careful about asking the necessary questions about the validity of the intelligence they were getting from Iraqi exiles and others who were all too eager to use American force for their own Iraqi political ends.  This should be acknowledged.  It hasn't, and it has led to a decline in the public's acceptance of anything this president has to say.  Here is Andrew Sullivan:

Oddly enough, I think Bush would have been more easily forgiven by the public if he'd been less defensive about it at the moment the WMD argument collapsed after the invasion. But he refused to acknowledge the obvious, dismissed the embarrassment, tried to change the subject and then just went silent. Once again, he mistook brittleness for strength. These many small decisions not to trust the American people with the full, embarrassing truths about the war has, in the end, undermined trust in the president and therefore support for the war. For that lack of candor, the president is paying dearly. So is the war in Iraq.

In a political society, especially a democratic society, leaders need to be honest and truthful with the people.  It is only fair.  The American public likes honest leadership; people who tell it like it is.  Bush used to have this image but his stubborn refusal to admit glaring mistakes has cost him this mantle.  John McCain has always had this reputation and his popularity reflects this.  McCain could do well in 2008 simply because he has this reputation. 

The public now craves an open reckoning of this administration's plans for Iraq.  What is the plan?  Will we build up our forces so we can have the manpower to actually shut down the leaks in the Iraqi-Syrian border?  If we lack the troops to get this done, what is the alternative?  If we can't change the status quo (which seems to be two American soldiers killed each day with no positive trend in sight) what are we left with?  We can call it a long battle that requires patience, but what if it's just a long battle that is stuck in a routine of 50 dead American soldiers per month?  Iraq can have all the elections and referendum they want, but if the violence does not subside, I don't see reason to celebrate.

We need honesty from our leadership about our progress in Iraq.  Admit mistakes and move to correct them.  That is the best way to succeed.

Chalabi in DC

I've just returned from a circus-like appearance by Ahmed Chalabi at the American Enterprise Institute.  This was Chalabi's first visit to the U.S. in two and a half years and the first since he has been accused of passing American codes to the government of Iran, and since his home was raided by American forces a year ago.  Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress pushed faulty and false intelligence on the Bush administration prior to the war, which Cheney and his cohorts readily ate up.  This speech was his first moment of potential accountability since the war began.

The audience for the speech was a star cast of top Washington reporters and thinkers: David Corn of The Nation, Matt Yglesias of The American Prospect, Reuel Marc Gerecht of AEI, David Schuster of MSNBC's Hardball, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, Michael Barone of US News & World Report, Fouad Ajami of SAIS, David Frum of The National Review, Robin Wright of The Washington Post, and Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair and Slate.  And those were just the people I recognized off-hand.

The room of about 80 people was packed.  When Chalabi finally took the podium, he looked incredibly nervous and hesitant.  I guess I would be as well if I was being investigated (however anemically) by the FBI into the passing of American codes to the Iranians and being harassed by reporters wanting to know why his claims of WMD in Iraq turned out to be so wrong.

Here are a few choice quotes from Chalabi.  I wasn't actively taking notes, but a few things jumped out as particularly noteworthy, shocking, absurd or some combination therein.

• "Most of the Ba'ath Party was Shia."  Huh?  I'm not sure where he's getting this from, but I'm pretty sure that it is blatantly not true. 
• "The fact that I misled the U.S. is an urban myth."  Well, he has certainly picked up on the Bush administration's favored tactic when faced with overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing: deny and summarily dismiss the argument out-of-hand.  Period.  It will go away!
• "I did not pass sensitive information to Iran."  This may not be a surprising quotation, but perhaps you had to be there to see how he was saying this.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone more uncomfortable in my life.  The fact that he was speaking a lie was all over his face.
• "I would go to the Senate and answer questions."  Well, he has offered.  Now where are the senators on the intelligence committee calling for a hearing?  Anyone?
• "I have a multi-dimensional relationship with the Bush administration."  There's a euphemism if I ever heard one.  Chalabi went from the administration's best friend to the top of its black list and now back to its uncomfortable friend all within three years.  Multi-dimensional is a good word for it, to say the least.
• "It is not useful for me to comment on this.  That is in the past."  This is what Chalabi said when asked about how he pushed fraudulent and faulty intelligence about Saddam's WMD's.  Stunning.  The means justify the ends to him, even if the American public is paying the cost of those ends.  His only goal was to overthrow Saddam.  If that meant pimping false evidence so the United States would be persuaded into war, so be it.  So what if 2,000 American soldiers are now dead - he's deputy prime minister now.
• I don't have an exact quote for this one, but Chalabi also suggested that the U.S. needn't really ever leave Iraq.  They should just pull back to a few bases eventually.  Why should the U.S. stay and keep bases in Iraq?  To protect Iraq from its neighbors.  Not to keep Iraq from descending into civil war, but to keep Iraq free from interference from its threatening neighbors.  The man really does think that the U.S. military is his own play thing.
• Chalabi also spoke about Iraqi oil.  For a while.  This portion, quite appropriately, was when he seemed to lighten up and he developed a somewhat evil smile as he spoke about the possibilities for Iraqi oil.  It may sound typically leftist of me, but he seriously began to get an animated look in his eye suggesting that the topic of Iraqi oil was where his real interest lay.  Spooky.

The cast of characters who attended the speech, other than reporters and notable intellectuals, was interesting.  I spotted people from a variety of sketchy-sounding energy and consulting companies.  Just to name a few: C & O Resources, ExxonMobil, Orion Strategies, Aries Group and Goodwin Procter LLP.  Mind you, I don't know what these or some of the other companies and organizations do, but I was sufficiently suspicious of their presence at the Chalabi speech.

After the speech I followed the throng out of the room and was able to get a few good pictures of Chalabi as he left.  In the elevator lobby I met Matt Yglesias, whose various blogs I read on a regular basis.  He seemed equally amazed by Chalabi's gall.  Here is his take on Chalabi's dismissal of any wrong-doing.  I hadn't read the "page 108" Chalabi was referring to, but Matt has and points it out.  As Matt says, it certainly is a curious way to exonerate oneself.

After pausing to see who else I recognized, I took an elevator down with Christopher Hitchens and David Corn, among other people.  Talk about a recipe for conflict.  Hitchens used to write for The Nation until his pro-war position became untenable and he left in disgust.  Corn is still there and is The Nation's marquee reporter.  Awkward!  The two of them almost immediately started going at it over the CIA leak case.  I didn't catch the whole thing, but watching the two of them go at it was priceless.  Their argument continued outside for about five minutes while Hitchens lit up a smoke, and Corn got apoplectic about the absurdity of the Bush administration's claims about the war.  It was incredible theater. 

After a few minutes I introduced myself to Hitchens and took the opportunity to ask him about his March 2005 piece in Vanity Fair where he looked into the incredible voter irregularities in Ohio, where I voted while at Kenyon College.  I asked him if he thought that the election could have gone the other way had these irregularities not existed and he scoffed at the suggestion.  "It wouldn't have been in the Democrats' interests to pursue an investigation into the irregularities.  Just like with Nixon in Illinois [in 1960], it was best for both sides not to bring it to the fore."  I still have my doubts.

Hitchens then turned the subject back to Chalabi, his good friend.  I asked him if he thought Chalabi had been passing American intelligence to the Iranians.  "No," he insisted.  "It's possible that with his training, you know, at [The University of] Chicago that with his own ability he was able to crack the codes.  He is a mathematical genius.  His expertise is cryptology.  It is possible that he broke the codes himself."  (This is a paraphrase since I was walking down M Street and crossing Connecticut Avenue all while being amazed that I was having an actual conversation with Christopher Hitchens at the time).  Now, I don't believe this for one second.  Why would Chalabi be trying to break American codes in his spare time anyway?  Who does that if they are friendly to us?  Suspicious, I say.

I noticed that Hitchens was without his Kurdish flag lapel pin.  He has been wearing it for years as a symbol of what is possible and as a sign of solidarity with the long oppressed Kurds of northern Iraq.  He said he had lost the pin and felt naked without it.  That is certainly no good.  At Connecticut Avenue we parted ways and I again mentioned that he should try to get back to Kenyon if he could get the chance.  We may disagree on Chalabi, but Hitchens is someone who I wouldn't mind spending some time listening to and arguing with.  Maybe some other time. 

Anyway, there is my close encounter with Ahmed Chalabi, the man who sold the Bush administration a war in Iraq.  Now I'm going to wash my hands.

**UPDATE**: If you're interested in more of the substance of the speech (which I skimmed for the most part), be sure to read this account by David Donadio at Cont'd, the new blog of The American Interest.  Donadio is also a Kenyon alum and is now the Deputy Managing Editor at The American Interest.

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.

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.