What's a Little Lying Between Friends?

"And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite possible-- dare I say probable?-- that no indictments would be the just and appropriate resolution to this inquiry.

"I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way Bill Clinton did-- knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary-- and successful-- political campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation."

Except if a senior official doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to a grand jury-- and is charged with perjury-- that, by definition, is less than "fully cooperative."

I found this John Dickerson piece in Slate to be one of the most revealing about Scooter:

"It's surprising . . . to find Libby is at the center of a press scandal. The daily communications operation is not something he cares much about. Rove, by contrast, spends a portion of every day running his own press operation. He sends BlackBerry messages, forwards polling data, and argues his case to influential journalists. Libby flies at a higher altitude, talking mostly to marquee columnists and preferring longer and more in-depth conversations to the rat-a-tat-tat required by reporters on deadline.

"Libby does enjoy the intellectual cat-and-mouse game of longer form interviews, those who have worked with him say. He challenges basic assumptions and presses on a reporter's sloppy definitions. In my experience interviewing him, if a line of reasoning was in any way harmful to the administration or the vice president, it was sometimes impossible to get past the gorilla dust. His shimmy and shake sometimes got so bad, I wondered if he would even admit to working for the vice president. 'It's very lawyerly kind of amusement,' says a former aide.

"When the Cheneys hosted a party in February 2002 for the paperback publication of Libby's book, the guest list was not filled with workaday journalists, but with the elite from New York and Washington: Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee, Leon Wieseltier and Maureen Dowd. In those early days after 9/11, it seemed like the relationship between the press and the media elite might turn out to be a fairly cozy one. The Bushies hated 'old Washington,' but as Libby and the vice president spoke from the landing at the bottom of the stairs, it seemed as if their half of the administration understood the quiet commerce between the ruling elite and the more permanent Washington establishment . . .

"Libby is fussy and precise with reporters, which is why friends and colleagues find it so hard to believe that he would have been involved in leaking Plame's identity, obstructing justice, or committing perjury.

"Libby was an exacting source for anyone who talked to him. After using a Libby quote, it was not unusual for reporters to receive a call from the vice president's press shop. Mr. Libby wanted to know why only a portion of his comment was used. 'He would prefer that if a reporter was going to quote him that it be an unedited transcript,' says one who worked closely with him. Other reporters were scolded if a Libby quote hidden under the attribution of 'senior administration official' was placed near sentences that he thought might identify him, even if no reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion. In other words, he's as careful as they come in Washington."

On the Miers front, Ryan Lizza marvels in the New Republic at how quickly the right has turned:

'That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the conservative movement. This month, he's a traitor . . .

"To be sure, the conservative abandonment of Bush isn't total. The right is divided. Some see the split as one of Washington eggheads versus the red-state masses. Others, noting that the debate over Miers is, at its core, about abortion, interpret the current anger as a revolt by social conservatives. But neither of these explanations quite captures what is going on. The conservative war over Miers is being fought by elites on both sides. The pro-Miers elites are just doing a better job of wrapping their cause in populism."