Close, But No Cigar

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year probe will climax sometime this week. The anti-Bush crowd expects to climax simultaneously. Some have already done so, albeit somewhat prematurely.

The Bush-haters believe they are getting closer to achieving their objective: The castration of the Bush administration.

These people--far Left Dems, members of the mainstream media, Cindy Sheehan wacko anti-war types--are counting on federal indictments to render Bush impotent.

They expect that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation eventually will result in the long-awaited fulfillment of their hopes and dreams, stripping Republicans of power and delivering it back to the Dems.

The New York Times has a story today that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved (unknowingly) in the leaking (unintentionally) of Valerie (Flame) Plame's covert (non-covert) CIA status.

Yes, this entire matter is that convoluted.

The SHOCKING expose in the Times is, naturally, based on undisclosed sources and leaks. The information all comes from those same mysterious lawyers that have been pumping the mainstream media with a steady flow of possible news now for weeks.

The Times breathlessly writes about NOTES:

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

IT'S CHENEY.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO CHENEY.

Unfortunately, for the Bush-haters, after the Times engages in a lot of foreplay in the initial paragraphs of its earth-shattering article, there is no pay-off.

Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.

...The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.

Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false-statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury.

Lawyers involved in the case said they had no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

In other words, the claim that the notes "for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV," is completely misleading.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "middle" is.

The Times splashes the piece as if Cheney is about to be indicted and will be forced to resign from office.

Then, for the libs, those hopes are dashed.

My guess is most lib Times readers aren't thinking clearly enough to notice that reality.

I submit that it would not be difficult to prove that the New York Times intentionally seeks to mislead the public.