Is it not a well known practice among lawyers, to the extent possible, to never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer? So why are you so upset about Prosecutor Fitzgerald doing that very thing? Oh, I understand, how naive of me! It's been done to a Republican this time and not a Democrat. It was fine to do it to former President Clinton but once it's done to a Republican it's out of bounds and unfair. This tactic is very effective in determining whether a person will lie to you or not and it seems the tactic has smoked out someone who has a hard time keeping his facts straight.

Prosecutor Fitzgerald is simply going where the evidence takes him and in this case it takes him to the vipers nest of the Vice President. Mr. Libby has been caught in so many lies that, I believe, he either ought to be put in an old person's home for having such a faulty memory because he is truly ill or put in jail. I actually favor jail personally. A fair destination for a political hack trying to harm the reputation of innocent critics of a corrupt administration.

Mr. Cheney has been shown to consistently mislead the public with his public statements. I think I might even go so far as to say he actually has lied to support misguided administration foreign policy. As far as I am concerned, he should be censured and left to sit mute for the remainder of his term. He is essentially useless because nothing he says can be trusted. With regard to his Iraq position and terrorism...he lied to help get the country into Iraq and now that we are in Iraq he does not want us out. The American public, by a huge margin, wants us out of Iraq. It is not because Americans are quitters. It is because they finally see the stupidity of Republican foreign policy in Iraq. The Iraq invasion was, without doubt, the most significant foreign policy blunder in US history. It has accomplished nothing other than upset the entire mideast and horribly damaged US prestige internationally.

Are you just trying to be provacative or do you seriously contend that Democrats support Al Qaeda? I think you actually are in denial right along with other hardcore Republicans. How low will you stoop? Blaming Democrats for a Republican mess? How long will your shrill cries for continuation of a winless civil war go on? Although you contend to not be Republican, I have seen little in your positions of late to convince me otherwise. I have a novel thought since we are throwing out wild ideas here! What if Al Qarda is actually using reverse psychology? They actually want to keep Republicans in control by sounding as if they support the Democrats. I can see the soundness of that strategy because the Republican administration handles the war on terrorism like the Keystone cops...with complete ineptitude. It is certainly in Al Qaeda's best interests to keep these clowns in control.

We have been in Iraq for over four years. A key question...has the Iraq invasion gone well and accomplished its goals? For most rational people I think the answer is no. To begin with, the reasons for invasion were contrived by Bush and company with no basis in fact. Secondly, their righteous invasion has been shown to be a fool's quest and a sham. Unfortunately, many US servicemen and women have lost their lives in the failed effort. Politically, only the Democrats have the fortitude to step up to the plate, recognizing that the Republican administration has committed a grave error, and take concrete steps to extricate our country from Iraq. It really would be refreshing to see a Republican finally admit that....well, maybe things haven't gone so wonderfully in Iraq, maybe we have gotten off course in Iraq, and maybe we would have been better off with no invasion in the first place. But that would take a concession too great to expect because....Republicans have never been wrong. Just ask them.

As was pointed out in the article you referenced in the header for your comments which I read, lying under oath is a no no. Libby lied under oath and therefore perjured himself, did he not? He was also cited for obstruction of justice. How ironic! That's what Republicans nailed Clinton on, right? We will see soon if the charges have merit. Libby's trial would not have occurred without some basis justifying a trial. He richly deserves what he gets as a result. Prosecutor Fitzgerald is completely justified in bringing Libby, kicking and screaming, to trial. I do not think the federal prosecutor would begin such an expensive endeavor without some belief that the legal effort is justified.

Actually, WMD were the first reason Bush and Cheney used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Of course, once that was disproved we have had a veritable parade of reasons justifying the Iraq invasion. How convenient to try to rewrite history when it becomes a little inconvenient. I guess President Bush handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina brilliantly as well. I just happen to read about the story from the wrong sources...hmm?

What policy choices of the left do you feel support Al Qaeda? That they want to withdraw from Iraq? How long do you want to stay there, Ross? Why don't we just annex the country? It's been four years, what's another four years and another three thousand deaths in the scheme of things? Ross, if Democrats had invaded Iraq and it had turned out as it has you would be livid, there would be no end to your rants in this blog. I'm sure the "I" word would be tossed about as well. Unfortunately, the Republicans were the ones who blew this, and they blew it big time.

I do agree with you that there are those on the left who are rooting for a bad outcome. But if the shoe had been on the other foot there would be those on the right who would wish for the same thing. It is hardball politics. At the moment, Iraq is like a pitbull fully locked on the president's leg. From the Democrat's point of view, it is an exquisite political situation for them to have the Republican party in. Don't you agree? Iraq will burn Republicans in the 2008 elections just as it did in 2006. This will be due to the fact that the war will just not go away as an issue and the American public is over it. This is an ominous situation for the Republicans much more than the Democrats.

Ross, please. Let's agree that maybe we both know enough about many different issues so as to be dangerous. Do I think you are a blind partisan? Thus far, my view is that you lean hard right...alot. I base my comment on my experience at this blog for the past month or two. If you are neither a Democrat (that's for sure) and not a Republican (the jury's still out) how come all your critical articles target Democrats? I don't see much middle ground in your views thus far. Perhaps it's just coincidence and next week you will have an article that actually criticizes Republicans but, so far, I haven't seen that. I believe we both keep abreast of the news but we see the same things in starkly different tones.

Take the Libby trial. You think it is unfair, that Libby wasn't the original leaker. You are right, from what I have read it seems the original leaker was Richard Armitage. But Libby lied to the prosecutor during the investigation. Just as Bill Clinton lied to the prosecutor years before. Bill Clinton was inpeached as a result of his lies which was legally correct. I don't imagine you had a problem with that, did you? So why the outrage at Libby being tried? You see, I love consistency and I love facts. Isn't the trial of Libby consistent with the facts surrounding Clinton's impeachment? Whose thinking is a little muddled here? Both Libby aand Clinton lied to a federal prosecutor during the course of an investigation. Clinton lied and faced trial. Therefore, since Libby (allegedly) too lied...he should face trial, shouldn't he. What's so difficult about that? It makes complete sense.

Libby was but one of many witnesses who were questioned by Fitzgerald during the course of his investigation. None of these other witnesses were guilty either but there was one important difference...they told the truth under oath. Apparently, Libby was found to have allegedly lied. We will see whether he is guilty of that crime in the near future. I understand that his career has been damaged but is that really a problem? Libby is simply collateral damage in a domestic political dispute. How many other people have been demonized (or swift boated, if you prefer) by the Bush administration over these past six years? I find it hard to dredge up much sympathy for Mr. Libby.

You are right, Clinton lied about something he did. If Libby lied, he probably did it to protect someone. But the justification and the distinction you are trying to make is immaterial in the final analysis. The key point you fail to recognize is that Libby was questioned under oath. As a lawyer himself, he should have been fully aware of the consequences of lying under oath. I suspect if he had it to do all over again he might have handled things differently.

I'm glad that we do agree that the reason given by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq was WMD. Until none were found, that is. Then the real reason for the invasion was something else according to what the decider decided. We have been through so many iterations that it is almost impossible to determine what the reason du jour for the Iraq invasion is or was.

I, too, would be very reluctant to debate Iraq because arguing in support of the Republican position would be very difficult. Things didn't quite go according to the master plan. Perhaps the "surge" will turn all things around.