My gripe about this from day one is that - to paraphrase a line from "Apocalypse Now" - indicting someone in DC for a leak is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I thought the Dem/media rhetoric that "outing" Plame threatened either her or national security was just plain hyperventilated hogwash, and I still believe that. What this is all about is the Administration trying to defend itself from what it saw to be false or misleading allegations. Somewhere in that defense, someone let it slip that Plame was a CIA staffer, as a way of explaining how Wilson got the Niger assignment. If that's a crime worthy of a two-year investigation, we are living in a very hypocritical and f*cked up society.
Looks like the patients have taken over the asylum. DeLay is facing life in prison, Rove is about to be indicted, conservatives are calling for the impeachment of Bush....
I mostly feel terrible for our soldiers. If this keeps up, the left will be in full swing. Those brave fighting men and women will come home to the same treatment the Viet Nam vets got. Cindy Sheehan will be in the senate and Hilary will be in the white house.
FUBAR
Well said, and I couln't agree more. Heck this is how the article that is the subject of this thread began:
Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy...
It's supposed to be against the law to lead grand jury testimony, but we won't see any 2-yr investigations or indictments about these leaks. Washington is a town that is a swamp of leaks. If every danged technically criminal leak was investigated, nothing else would get done in that town [which might not be a bad thing ;-) ].
Everything I've read about the statute that applies to the Plame name leak appears to indicate that no law was broken. So all that's left is some trumped-up consipracy and/or obstruction of justice charge, and that old standy of special prosecutors, perjury.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no jeopardy of perjury if the matter at the heart of the investigation is not a crime.