Libby "shared the interests of his superior and was subject to his direction," the prosecutor wrote. "Therefore, the state of mind of the vice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue."

Am I wrong, or is Fitzgerald stating that Cheney's testimony will demonstrate that the VP wanted Plame outed, and Libby lied to the grand jury about outing Plame in order to take the heat off his boss?

Myths are as old as humanity. Some provide useful insights.  Some provide comforting notions. Some are merely entertaining.  Some are downright dangerous.  Rulers have relied on the power of myths to lead and mislead people since time immemorial.

Misleading myths (aka "Mything the Point"), like all lies, beget more lies. That is why we need to weed them out on a routine basis.  If we let them go unchallenged, they will run riot and eventually choke us in our sleep.  

Which brings me to a myth that needs to be uprooted:

RESTORING HONOR AND DIGNITY TO THE OVAL OFFICE

VIDEO LINK

In approximately 5 hours I'll be appearing on Fox News's The Big Story with John Gibson to "debate" Bob Beckel (Democratic "strategist" and the Walter Mondale's campaign manager in 1984, the man who famously appropriated the Wendy's slogan, "Where's the Beef") on the topic of impeachment.

I am for it, Beckel is against it.

In the interest of clarifying the arguments for impeachment, I'd like to encourage a discussion here about the NSA warrantless wiretappings and the NIE leaks, focusing on three themes:

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.

Taken From NY Sun

[Update]FIXED LINK FOR THE NY SUN!!! PLUS link to PDF of court documents below!

The NY sun Link is dead ending (error)
BUT
Raw Story has it too!

Anyone care to chat about this?
+++ A bit from Raw story below...

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.

Taken From NY Sun

FIXED LINK FOR THE NY SUN!!! PLUS link to PDF of court documents below! [Update] The NY sun Link is dead ending (error) BUT Raw Story has it too!

Anyone care to chat about this? +++ A bit from Raw story below...

There's an editorial in today's Washington Post on the brouhaha surrounding Bob Woodward.

And as with the NYT did with Judy Miller, they just don't get it.  

Excuse me, but nobody is vilifying Bob Woodward for protecting the identity of his source.  They are vilifying him for being a part of the story, and using his 'vaulted' experience to undermine the investigation.

More.....

What this man said was that he "believed that this whole Wilson story was just a matter of different impressions".

read on..

He explained by saying that Wilson had one impression of the story, and that the Bush Administration had another impression. He also went on to say that it was wrong of Wilson to write his story on the Niger incident because he had "no knowledge" of whether or not the Niger information was true or not, since 'nobody' knew definitively!

Please, this was no misunderstanding, this was not a 'mixed signals' issue. This Administration knew  damn well what they were doing, and it is why they are fighting so hard to keep it covered up. The truth needs to come out at every turn, and obfuscating the main issues with so much smoke up everyone's ass is just not acceptable. This needs a solid refutation.

Don't let this pathetic argument circulate in the mainstream without answer!

As others have written, including emptywheel at The Next Hurrah, the indictment itself was written to signal to others of interest that Fitzy already has a lot of information, and a lot of witnesses.  What's more, it's likely that he is (think Don Adams here as Maxwell Smart) this close to bringing a conspiracy indictment.

But during his press conference, Fitzy told all concerned exactly what he wants to know, putting everyone involved in this conspiracy into a clasic prisoner's dillemma situation.

More on the flip.