Your other point, regarding emphasizing evidence, seems to be completely wrong. We already know the Niger documents were crude forgeries and we may soon know how that mess is all connected. If this whole Italian job was the source of the 16 words in the SOTU (including the Brit's source, apparently), then we have more than just a selective emphasis of evidence - the forgery was known long before the SOTU.

Further, what the documents referenced in this post seem to point to is that, rather than the CW, the administration - in the form of the OSP - bears quite a bit of the responsibility for the intelligence failure. How much, we don't know, but it's beginning to look pretty darn bad.

So, we can't know for sure, but it certainly smells like fraud if not out right lying.

Oh, and just listening to Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference, the whole "she wasn't an undercover agent and no one blew her cover" defense is officially dead.

The headline says "Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel"... Now, this only refers to information that should have been sent to the panel investigating after-the-fact, but there's a very sharp dagger hidden behind that cloak: did this administration withhold critical info from Congress _before the Iraq invasion_?

The possibilities here are stunning - it's one thing to emphasize certain pieces of intel over others in making one's own decision, but if this is more than just a fever dream, it means the WH may have flatly lied to Congress about the actual intel itself to _force_ them to support the decision to go to war... and if you'll recall, that's solely Congress' decision; the President can only make the request. This goes to the very heart of the Constitutional separation of powers, and a is potentially treasonous (and I use that word deliberately) abuse of power.

There are rumors that Fitzgerald is not looking into getting an extension for the current GJ inquiry, but rather a _wholly new_ GJ, which would imply investigating a different set of charges. If there is any truth to this, it's more than just a black eye for the Bush admin; it's earth-shattering.

In many cases I did trust him, but I clearly remember the feeling of risk I experienced then. If we had a pattern of "trust" about "secrets" we faced the possibility that the trust would someday be abused.

So I'm saying I agree with you somewhat, but also worry about how to police the grey area between public information and a true Top Secret.

I'd say a lot of things (mere "secrets") should be released to Congress, and we should charge them with espionage, treason, whatever, IF they leak.

I don't hold to either extreme here (that congress should be told all Top Secrets, or that congress should be told no Secrets).

I'm looking for a reasonable middle line ... where only the most sensitive secrets are withheld.

... and then you've got to trust that if Top Secrets are abused, whistleblowers will emerge ... which might bring us back to where we are today.

I believe the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that delaying the suit unfairly hindered plaintiffs from pursuing claims.

'I am very skeptical that Jones was sexually harassed' 'I suppose I may be biased.'

Yeah, maybe.

And the first link in the above article, which shows the executive branch “withholding” documents, related to the war, from Congress … does not look good.

I don't like it either, although it may be within their legal right.

I think there should be absolute transparency in such matters. Indeed, the Constitution would seem to require it. Unfortunately, administrations fear that Congress, or more accurately, individual congressmen, can't be trusted. That would likely have been true in this case, with anti-war congressmen leaking classified docs to the press to make their case stronger.

I hope that you hope that impeachment never becomes a trial of “morality and public policy.”

I don't want to see it used as a weapon about policy disagreements, to be sure. On the other hand, if a consensus developed that George Bush actually "lied to take us to war" impeachment would be an appropriate venue. In the early days--when the Framers were still alive--impeachment was used for public morality issues, such as public drunkeness by federal judges.

So, I don't think impeachment should be used to "get" political opponents I don't think it can be used only in cases where the official commits crimes applicable to ordinary citizens.

I have never seen how consensual sex years later is relevant to sexual harassment charges

There are those, mostly Democrats, who argue that sex between a boss and a subordinate, especially in a case of power disparity such as separated Clinton and Lewinski, is never consensual. And, unfortunately perhaps, virtually everything is fair game in a civil deposition, let alone one where sex is the basis of the controversy.

Interesting on the Starr-Jones link.

The "perjury trap" bit is controversial (duh), but settling for the 1st page of Google results, I found this old WaPo bit:

And Clinton's suspicions about a Starr-Jones collaboration have found their way into public accusations by his surrogates. Several congressional Democrats have alleged a collusion. The president's recently departed chief scandal spokesman, Lanny J. Davis, has been appearing on television shows repeating the charge, though he said he has never discussed it with Clinton. The major basis for the allegation is that Linda R. Tripp was helping Starr and Jones simultaneously. In fact, the day before Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones case, Tripp lured Lewinsky to an Arlington hotel where she was detained by Starr's investigators, then drove home to brief a Jones lawyer about Lewinsky's purported affair so that precise questions could be asked of the president under oath. Jones's lawyers have denied teaming up with Starr and rejected the notion they laid a perjury trap for Clinton, noting it was his choice whether to tell the truth or not.

Hm, that's why they call it a "perjury trap." In retrospect, it seems that's exactly what happened, but I suppose I may be biased.

But that’s what special prosecutors do. We have elections to judge matters of morality and public policy. Not to mention impeachment.

I just place a different emphasis on the stories surrounding the run-up to the war. Rather than simply wait for special prosecutors to isolate crimes, I believe we should step up take an active interest in the state of our democracy.

Being a lifelong conservative and Republican, I've often been simpathetic to "framer's intensions." One such "constructionist" position to remember that it is Congress' role to declare war, and that the President may only make a case to them.

Making a dishonest case (promising war as a "last resort" when perhaps it was decided?) obviously subverts the intention of our Constitution.

I don't know the relationship between Starr and Jones' attorneys prior to the perjury. It's possible, I suppose, given the timeline:

Jan. 17, 1998 - Testifying under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, President Clinton denies having had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. He reportedly acknowledges having had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, a charge he previously had denied.

Jan. 13, 1998 - With FBI help, Tripp wears a body mike during a meeting with Lewinsky and records their conversatin.

Jan. 12, 1998 - Linda Tripp contacts independent counsel Kenneth Starr's office, and gives them 20 hours of taped conversations she had with Lewinsky.

Jan. 7, 1998 - In a sworn affidavit, Monica Lewinsky denies having an affair with President Clinton.

1997

December 1997 - Tripp reportedly tells Lewinsky that she will testify about their conversations regarding Lewinsky's alleged trysts with President Clinton.

[...]

May 27, 1997 - Supreme Court rules Paula Jones may pursue her lawsuit against Mr. Clinton, while he's still in office.

Even if we assume Starr gave Jones' attorneys this info (which would seem to be problematic on a client confidentiality basis) it is certainly a relevant fact in the Jones case, just as Gennifer Flowers was.

Why Clinton lied about that still baffles me given that 1) it's not as if he didn't already have a reputation as a skirt chaser and 2) he's a smart enough lawyer to know that lawyers don't ask questions they don't already know the answers to. It would have been one thing if they had asked a generic question about sex in the White House or some such, but once they used Lewinski's name, he had to know they knew.

Ah well.

... and I do not want their immorality, their lack of fidelity to the democracy, (if this proves to be the case) defended with the narrow criteria of what a special investigator can catch as “crime.”

But that's what special prosecutors do. We have elections to judge matters of morality and public policy. Not to mention impeachment.