If no crime was committed why didn’t the White House just say, ‘yeah we did it?’ Why did Freedom Medal winner Tennet refer the case to the DOJ? Why did the appeals court find that the matter was so serious it superceded the first amendment rights of the free press? Why did Fitzgerald say, ‘because of the obstruction he couldn’t determine if a crime was committed?’

Your point is well taken though. I wish some sharp reporter had the where with all to ask a question of Fitzgerald in his one and only press conference that went something like this: Did CIA agent Valerie Wilson qualify for protection under the law?

The problem with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is that the way it is written places limiting conditions on the knowledge and intentions of anyone who would disclose such identities. Defenders of the White House seem to be making the case that Wilson never qualified for protection under the act. If that were the case, Fitzgerald would have closed up shop after day one, because that would have been the first thing he would have established as to whether or not a crime might have been committed.

Rove may be indicted but you may want to look at the merits of the case, the possible backlash, and the future of Special Prosecutors. The White House gave Fitzgerald total cooperation and access. The result a bungled investigation that did not even determine early on if there was a crime.

I guess I should be happy that you are off the Bush obstruction/perjury kick of several weeks ago.

I know to the morally superior Christian Right that is just good old fashioned hardball politics. One can only hope at least half of the grand jury are of this ilk, because godless humanists may think going after your enemy’s wife is crossing the evil line. Even if it is political genius.