Replies

The NYT article's authors seemingly have their blinders on. There is at least one other plausible explanation for what's going on that comes to mind, that is, if you have an inclination towards lateral thinking.

Since the grand jury operates in secret, we do not know precisely what possible crime(s) it may be investigating. Piecing together the actual intent and targets of a grand jury investigation from the statements of some of the witnesses is at best a hit-or-miss proposition (remember the lies that Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal told about his experiences inside the Monicagate 'Starr Chamber'?) It is not out of the question that the law that everybody is assuming may have been broken (the one regarding intentional disclosure of an agent's identity), may in fact not have been broken, and instead the grand jury's focus is directed elsewhere.

For example, wouldn't it be a hoot if the grand jury were investigating a conspiracy by Wilson and others (such as the NYT) to subvert the work of the CIA and to threaten national security by mounting those false, vicious, and malicious attacks against the administration? I am not talking about freedom of the press issues here. Instead, the possibility of a well-orchestrated and financed plot to undermine the government, maybe even with foreign sources of cash in plain brown wrappers passed under the table. Can't you just smell the oil-for-food money link here?

Rather than seeing Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, wouldn't it be great to see Joe Wilson's mug shot plastered on the front pages? And wouldn't it cause the angry left's heads to explode in a collective fit of apoplexy?

It is not out of the question that the law that everybody is assuming may have been broken (the one regarding intentional disclosure of an agent's identity), may in fact not have been broken, and instead the grand jury's focus is directed elsewhere.

For example, wouldn't it be a hoot if the grand jury were investigating a conspiracy by Wilson and others (such as the NYT) to subvert the work of the CIA and to threaten national security by mounting those false, vicious, and malicious attacks against the administration?

Exactly. That has been my theory since the start.

Instead, the possibility of a well-orchestrated and financed plot to undermine the government, maybe even with foreign sources of cash in plain brown wrappers passed under the table.

BTW, to buttress our theory, note the "Sexed up Dossier" charge was being rolled out in England against Blair via the media and "leaks" at the very same time the Wilson forces started planting their story over here (and also the BBC carried Wilson stories quoting an anonymous "CIA official" who just happened to tell the reporter the Wilson version. That would be the version that was a flat out lie against the Bush administration).

It was a two-pronged charge "Bush lied", "Blair sexed up". Hardly a coincidence, IMO.