President Bush moved to distract the nation from the fact that his White House is the first to sustain an indictment of one of its most senior officials in 130 years by nominating Appellate Court Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

As friends I was with this morning said, "Now we can finally say with certainty that Harriet Miers would have been a better choice."

Alito apparently ruled that a woman would have to notify her husband before getting an abortion. I need to learn more about this case, and about other decisions he has participated in, but when I hear Fox News gleeful that he cuts a profile similar to Antonin Scalia, I can't think of a worse "type" to add to the Supreme Court now.

As I watched the President's announcement of the Alito nomination on one station this morning, I watched C-Span 2's live coverage of American citizens streaming past the coffin of Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda.

Would Judge Alito have viewed the Supreme Court's orders on desegregation as judicial activism? One wonders.

I know little of Alito other than the fact that he is adored by Gary Bauer, believes in a limited role for the courts in our society (as he stated this morning), he has significant legal and judicial experience, and is a dependable conservative who apparently has ruled in the past that a woman's reproductive decisions are not hers alone.

And stating the obvious, Bush clearly negated the opportunity to further extend either the racial or gender diversity of the Supreme Court.

This blog -- and many other commentators -- have bemoaned the behavior and decisions of this President who believed he was only subject to a reality of his own making, that he "made his own weather." There were few constraints from Congress or the Courts on this monarchial President.

Now, George W. Bush is far weaker than he was. He is being knocked back by constraints and is playing to his base now of fundamentalist social conservatives. The pretense of playing to any sort of middle is over.

Now battles will rage over Alito, and they should. But regrettably, it's not clear to me that Democrats or moderate Republicans who believe in a woman's right to make her own decisions -- or in gay civil rights -- are organized and ready for this fight.

To make matters worse, Karl Rove is chomping at the bit to show that he has shaken off the Fitzgerald scare and is back in control.

Those opposed to a major redirection in the ideological direction of the Supreme Court better not go "wobbly" now. Accommodationists and weak players on either side are going to be severely judged by their constituents.

-- Steve Clemons

After Fitzgerald's announcement of five indictment charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, I have to admit that I felt sick to my stomach about this whole affair. It is a great national tragedy to have someone of Libby's stature fall from his post -- but it is something that had to happen.

Some of the joy felt by those who have been sending notes of "Merry Fitzmas" to celebrate the coming of the Fitzgerald indictments was tempered by the fact that Karl Rove (or "Official A" in the Libby indictment materials) was not indicted for any crime, as of yet.

I have no idea whether mighty Karl Rove will be felled at a later time, though most who have watched Fitzgerald operate in Chicago suggest that they would not be surprised.

On the right, there have been comments by the likes of William Safire and David Brooks on "Meet the Press" this morning that Fitzgerald has demonstrated that there was no sinister cabal at work that conspiratorially sought to leak the name and covert role of Valerie Plame Wilson. Brooks has asserted that there is "no cancer on the White House." Safire said that we should all note that the crime that Fitzgerald was sent out to investigate: a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was not specified.

Taking this a step beyond Brooks and Safire, David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey suggest that there should be "No More Special Counsels" because what Fitzgerald has charged Libby with has arisen not from the core cause of the investigation -- the outing of Plame-Wilson -- but rather from the investigation itself: lying to investigators.

There will be many who dissect Patrick Fitzgerald's every move. This blog will probably be among those because his work is essential for our democracy to be and "feel" democratic.

This White House has shown incredible disdain for the public's right to know about what contributed to any number of important presidential decisions and behaviors -- from the administration's energy policy, to a focus on a non-existent Iraq nuclear WMD program, to the president's and his team's relationship with Kenneth Lay and Enron executives, to the decision to send men and women of our armed forces into Iraq with none of the core "nation-building" blueprints in hand.

What is tragic is that during the Clinton administration, the American public was appropriately miffed, in this writer's view, with revelations of fundraising coffees inside the White House, with Lincoln Bedroom stays for top donors, and with the well-reported and now-cliched revelations about President Clinton's illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky.

But compare all of that, at its worst, with Tom DeLay's brand of pay-for-access-and-favors mega-fundraising from America's wealthiest firms and individuals. Compare that to a hyping of intelligence estimates about Iraq's danger to the world and to us that proved to be wrong and which have led to not only the death and injury of tens of thousands of people on both sides of this conflict. Compare that to the savage wounding of American mystique in the world, to showing America's military and financial limits to enemies and friends. Today, American power and leverage is falling precipitously in the eyes of those who want America to be a strong, albeit benign, nation.

Scooter Libby had a tilting hand in the affairs that have trashed this nation's status in the world. But he did not do it alone.

We should all fell sick about this. Out stomachs should churn with revulsion and anguish about what he has done -- and we should be careful with too much joy over this victory for accountability.

Libby did not do his work alone. There are many other culprits who helped him, but it would be quite wrong to think that Patrick Fitzgerald alone can bring all to justice. It's too big a problem when the President and Vice President cultivated a "culture" where Libby's type of alleged skull-duggery was encouraged.

For some time, I have been arguing with moderate Republicans and progressives and liberals that the only way to knock back the White House from its outrageous behavior was to (1) embarrass those in power with the spotlight of media attention on their most irresponsible and wrong-headed decisions and (2) to sue them in courts.

It is a useful contrast to consider that during the Clinton administration, the Clinton White House was under legal siege from the moment it moved into 1600 Pennsylvania.

George Bush has had no such challenge (until recently) to his operation -- not even against chief Congressional henchman Tom DeLay (for the first few years) despite DeLay's grossly public displays of corruption. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank once told me in DeLay's defense that his brand of corruption was "not self-dealing." Since then, we have read of the fact that he dealt well to his family, but that is besides the point. We have had a modern day Tammany Hall emerging in Washington -- this time in Republican circles -- and very little response from the Democratic opposition and quite successful distraction from these matters because of the "time of war" we are in.

It will be interesting and important to see how Cheney and Bush respond. Will they admit missteps? Will they level with the American public? Men and women in Iraq and in the U.S. armed services -- innocents there and innocents here -- died because of decisions that this White House made based on evidence that prominent neoconservative adherent Scooter Libby and others were hyping.

When America's system of checks and balances worked, on one level we should be pleased.

Knocking back the powers of a pretentious wannabe monarch is exactly what the founding fathers intended in our system of checks and balances. But no one said that it should "feel good" when it happened. It probably should feel terrible when the judicial, legislative, and executive branches grind ferociously at each other.

So, while I'm sick about what has happened this week, this is all about taking back the blank check and unconstrained power that the American public gave this White House because of the war.

To close, I just read the Los Angeles Times op-ed penned by Joe Wilson. It's worth reading the entire piece which is very interesting -- but the end really got me.

I excerpt it here:

The attacks on Valerie and me were upsetting, disruptive and vicious. They amounted to character assassination. Senior administration officials used the power of the White House to make our lives hell for the last 27 months.

But more important, they did it as part of a clear effort to cover up the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is the ultimate crime.

The war in Iraq has claimed more than 17,000 dead and wounded American soldiers, many times more Iraqi casualties and close to $200 billion.

It has left our international reputation in tatters and our military broken. It has weakened the United States, increased hatred of us and made terrorist attacks against our interests more likely in the future.

It has been, as Gen. William Odom suggested, the greatest strategic blunder in the history of our country.

We anticipate no mea culpa from the president for what his senior aides have done to us. But he owes the nation both an explanation and an apology.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Bolton in the clear.

This from a tuned-in TWN reader. His comment seems right:

The Undersecretary of State referenced in the indictment is not John Bolton -- it is Marc Grossman, the former U/S for Political Affairs. Because Powell and Armitage were out of the country at the time, Grossman was Acting Sec State. Hence, the State Department's INR forwarded Grossman the memo on the Niger stuff and Plame and Wilson's role, and Grossman forwarded it on to the White House. Nothing sinister -- Grossman was just peforming his bureaucratic function.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

ed note: thanks to J for this advisory.

Here is the current roster of senior State Department officials.

Robert Joseph now holds the portfolio previously held by John Bolton.

My hunch -- given the other options at the Under Secretary level -- is that John Bolton was one of Libby's four sources on Valerie Plame Wilson. It would be nice to have confirmation.

Frederick Fleitz, Bolton's Chief of Staff was concurrently a senior CIA WINPAC official, and may have been Bolton's source. I'm not sure, but he may also have been the "senior CIA officer" referred to as one of the four Plame sources for Libby.

-- Steve Clemons

According to Patrick Fitzgerald comments now being made, Libby had four sources for his information on Valerie Plame:

1. Senior CIA Officer

2. An Under Secretary of State

3. Vice President Cheney

4. another member of the Vice President's staff

-- Steve Clemons

Here is text of Vice President Cheney's Statement:

Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret.

Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction.

In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity.

Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.

-- Steve Clemons

One count obstruction of justice.

Two counts of false statements.

Two counts of perjury.

Nothing on Intelligence Identies Protection Act or Espionage Act.

More here.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm off this morning to meet with Nancy Roman, Washington Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, to discuss her report that calls for a bipartisan foreign policy. (. . .but just popped a couple of pain pills.)

My colleague and good friend Mark Schmitt took the CFR and Roman to task for the report, pretty harshly in fact.

I am very interested in this subject of re-building an "enlightened, pragmatic center" in foreign policy circles -- not to be a compromise between right and left -- but mostly to get us back to some groove that blends realism about America's opportunities and challenges with a strong sense of inspired (and inspiring) ethical behavior and humanitarian concern.

So, we are going to chat about bipartisanship. I really do think that the problem lies less between parties -- and rather with factions inside each party -- but should be an interesting discussion.

I need to do something to fill the time before the Fitzgerald announcement.

Be back with you later.

-- Steve Clemons

In my report the other morning after my accident, I mentioned that a prominent journalist had shared this:

My sense is that the Rove team is feeling more confident today, the Libby team despondent

This squares with the New York Times report this morning that Libby is up for indictment this morning -- and Rove has missed the bullet for the time being:

Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, was the subject of intense speculation Thursday as he arrived at the White House.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intended to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

So, today -- shortly -- we should see whether this is on track. We should also get an indication of whether Fitzgerald will seek extension of the investigation to pursue new questions that have emerged -- particularly if he has chosen to pursue questions regarding the source of "Niger/Uranium documents" and the promulgation of those by sources in the administration as part of a scheme inside the administration to hype the WMD threat.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

After yesterday's goof -- I'm letting all know that all I have is an ongoing swirl of rumors.

But here is a note I received from a friend:

Steve:

First, I hope you're feeling better. A conspiracy theorist would have a field day with this incident.

So, random story: I was speaking with a few friends, and I mentioned, "wouldn't it be intriguing if Fred Fleitz was the link in the leak case?" Not surprisingly, since my friends don't work in the foreign policy field, they'd never heard of Fleitz. I explained why he might be a logical link, but made the very serious disclaimer that it was not a prediction and that I had heard no suggestions, no evidence, no rumors even to support it.

Turns out one of those friends just got a rumor e-mail today saying Fleitz is being investigated. The sources are apparently two Senate staffers, a reporter, and aides to some of the people being investigated. I'm not saying this is happening, but I wanted to point out that the rumor that Fleitz is involved is now circulating. I'm intrigued because when the Bolton thing was going on, I was never comfortable with the Fleitz link.

So, that's that.

But then, a short while ago -- one of America's top journalists called me to ask what I knew about Fleitz. He said rumors were swirling everywhere and that a "really wild rumor" was that Bob Woodward had a piece appearing in tomorrow's Washington Post focusing on Fleitz. Realize -- NOTHING substantiated here.

Part of the rumor is that Fleitz is on leave.

I just tried to track that down. I just called Fred Fleitz, but got his answering machine and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. I then called Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph's office and talked to a person who told me that Fleitz was on leave for two days but would return to the office Monday morning.

I know nothing more. But here is what I wrote on Fleitz and the possibility of a Plame connection a while back. . .plus if you use the search function on the site for "Fleitz", you will find a lot of commentary on this website about him. He's an interesting, swashbuckling, rough-and-tough character who kept his CIA WINPAC portfolio despite being seconded to the State Department.

If this were true -- and Fleitz was in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs, then what law was broken?? One must now wonder if Fleitz was Robert Novak's source.

This is speculation, unsubstantiated. . .but really, really interesting.

I still think that there are a lot of reasons why the Fred Fleitz rumor might be very wrong -- and why someone like then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley might be the guy.

But this is what it is: RUMOR.

Those in the know though, email me -- or call.

-- Steve Clemons

Brent Scowcroft was not asked by the President to return to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when Scowcroft's term expired at the end of 2004. Most had assumed that Scowcroft would not only continue to serve on the PFIAB but would continue as Chairman as well.

At a weekend gathering at the home of Zbigniew Brzezinski just after the New Year, Scowcroft reportedly shared with those gathered, "I just got fired."

Shortly after, Scowcroft gave a humdinger of a speech before the New America Foundation -- along with Zbig Brzezinski -- on the 6th of January.

The President has now just announced that his new Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board will be former Goldman Sachs executive and former National Economic Advisor to the President Stephen Friedman.

Friedman was probably the least known head of the National Economic Council this country has seen -- particularly given the profile of the presciently accurate Larry "Iraq War = $200 Billion" Lindsey, Gene Sperling, Laura Tyson, and Robert Rubin. He never embarrassed the President. He's viewed as "safe" by the White House.

This from a White House Press release a short while ago:

The President intends to appoint Stephen Friedman, of New York, to be a Member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for a term of two years, beginning on December 20, 2005. Upon appointment, the President intends to designate him Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Member and Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Board.

The President intends to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for a term of two years:

James L. Barksdale of Mississippi

Arthur B. Culvahouse of Virginia

William O. DeWitt, Jr. of Ohio

Admiral James O. Ellis (Ret.) of Georgia

Donald L. Evans of Texas

Martin Faga of Virginia

Lee Hamilton of Indiana

Ray Hunt of Texas

David E. Jeremiah of Virginia

John L. Morrison of Minnesota

Elizabeth Pate-Cornell of California

The President intends to appoint Stefanie R. Osburn, of Virginia, to be Executive Director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Ms. Osburn currently serves as Chief of Staff for the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Management at the Central Intelligence Agency. Prior to this, she served as Chief of Staff for the Deputy Director of Center Intelligence for Community Management. Ms. Osburn, who has been with the CIA for over 20 years, has also served as Chief of Program Analysis, Chief of Policy, the Hard Target Executive Secretary, Chief of Security, Chief of Plans and Senior Program Analyst. Ms. Osburn received her bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia Southern.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Part of the process of reporting is doing the best one can do to source information, and seek double confirmation regarding stuff we post.

The source of mine in the real estate brokerage arena has called to retract information shared with me that the Office of the Special Counsel was expanding into 1401 New York Avenue. He states that "he just got it wrong."

In addition, the second source -- in the building -- says that he had a miscommunication with someone about this.

This was a flop. I believe in telling what I hear -- on both sides -- whether TWN got it right or wrong.

And in this case it was wrong.

On other fronts, thus far I am standing with what I posted the other day about the mult-point run-down of what Fitzgerald was doing. While he hasn't called a press conference today, which was told to me, there seems to be some likelihood that the other pieces have occurred.

I am not an expert on idictment process, but I did speak to someone who is such an expert today. As I have been informed, the Special Prosecutor can ask the grand jury to issue an indictment. That indictment request is filed with the judge in a case. If a request is made to "seal" the indictment -- it shrouds everything, and keeps the process secret.

Thus, indictments may have been filed yesterday -- and some are reporting that they were. Letters -- according to my sources -- were received by Tuesday by all indictment targets.

I am still a bit confused by the on-off information on the office space -- but I have to step back from this retracted information. If, however, Fitzgerald was expanding office space in Washington (he has office space at 1400 New York Avenue), that expansion could serve either an extension of the investigation -- or prosecution.

But for the time being, that is a dead end. Not fun.

-- Steve Clemons

A have just heard that the White House revenge-team is out to get Brent Scowcroft for the revelations he provided in this week's New Yorker.

Apparently, a roster of talking points was issued in an email to Cheney fellow travelers via a "Michael Neece."

If anyone has this document, I'd love to see it.

-- Steve Clemons

I am one who believes that we need to do all we can to move expeditiously towards a two-state settlement between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

But I have to say that statements like this from the President of Iran really muck up efforts of both sides to be responsible in trying to generate stability and fairness in an agreement, maintain security, and to work towards a very different environment in the Middle East.

This kind of statement deserves attention and condemnation -- but at the same time -- we need to find out quickly whether Mahmud Ahmadinejad is someone we can eventually work with though we may dislike him -- or whether this guy is completely irreconcilable.

Here's an excerpt:

Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad yesterday cited comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution, when he declared, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

Ahmadinejad told an audience of 3,000 students that there was "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

The remarks were immediately condemned by a number of countries including Israel, which said that Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.

I'm not supportive of any effort to expel Iran from the United Nations -- but clearly some brave diplomacy has to occur here. It won't come from the U.S. -- but I suspect China has incentives to begin getting involved in Iran's reckless diplomacy.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Big News. Harriet Miers has withdrawn. Next in line may be a Bork-like nominee.

Senator Sam Brownback said on NPR's "Morning Edition" this morning that the "hill to get to the Supreme Court is already pretty big -- and her hill was just getting bigger." He also said that much of the Senate (read, Republican Senate) opposition to her was the difficulty in accessing her record and documentation of her views from the Executive Branch.

File that one away for future use.

Someone just emailed me that CNN is saying again today that Fitzgerald will make no public comments today. This is odd -- and if true, is definitely different than my sources shared. I'd advise keeping our powder dry -- and seeing what unfolds. I'll do what I can to learn more -- but clearly, there is incedible confusion and anxiety proliferating about Patrick Fitzgerald's next move.

On the rumor front -- unsubstantiated -- I was told by the source that had said John McCain had been approached by intermediaries about the possibility of accepting a VP appointment if Cheney developed "health problems" that McCain turned down the offer. . .definitively.

More soon. Thanks for all the good wishes.

Those who said it hurts worse the second and third days after an accident were right.

-- Steve Clemons

Sources of TWN's retract information on this story -- see link.

Patrick Fitzgerald's intermediaries denied that there was any significance to the establishment of a new website, minimalist as it is, for the Office of the Special Counsel which is investigating the "outing" of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA responsibilities to the media.

Fitzgerald's people said that the investigation coming to a close and the website going up was just coincidence.

Well, news has just reached TWN that Patrick Fitzgerald is expanding not only into a new website -- but also into more office space.

Fitzgerald's office is at 1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor in Washington.

What I have learned is that the Office of the Special Counsel has signed a lease this week for expanded office space across the street at 1401 New York Avenue, NW.

Another coincidence? More office space needed to shut down the operation?

I think not. Fitzgerald's operation is expanding.

-- Steve Clemons

This will be a short, quick entry. . .I think.

First of all, for those of you who have heard that I was in a car accident last night -- thanks for your notes. I am ok. For those of you who did not know, I was hit by a car last night while walking in a crosswalk shortly after I filed this article with The Australian. It focuses on the Wilkerson speech and Scowcroft commentary and their collective impact on neoconservative ambitions.

The driver was a decent guy -- and didn't mean to do it -- but still, I had to spend about five and half hours at George Washington Hospital trying to get a CAT scan (however that is spelled) and make sure that my bones are intact. They are, but I'm sore.

Ok. . .on last night's post. I think that everything I wrote still stands. Fitzgerald convened and adjourned the grand jury today. Fitzgerald met the judge.

According to my sources, the letters to "indictment targets" were received yesterday. According to my legal sources, the standard practice would be for the grand jury to send indictment requests via the judge -- and these would be "filed" today. I have no idea how transparent that process is -- but I was told that the indictments are sealed.

I had also been told -- and reported yesterday -- that Fitzgerald would not call a press conference today, but that he would call one tomorrow. I have not spoken to my sources to learn whether this has changed -- but I was informed that the press conference would be called tomorrow, Thursday. There are rumors now flying that the press conference may be Friday -- but I have not spoken to any source about that.

The one interesting tidbit that came my way by way of an unnamed senior American journalist is this:

My sense is that the Rove team is feeling more confident today, the Libby team despondent

This is quite fascinating -- and could mean nothing. . .or everything. If Rove did not receive a letter yesterday and Libby did -- then Rove may have missed a bullet.

Alternative, Rove may be cited for lying to an FBI officer and not with full-fledged perjury and obstruction of justice, which many think Libby will be facing.

I have no other information on the number of individuals to be indicted, and can't offer substantiation of any kind for the nuanced comment above -- but I share it because it's intriguing and may mean that the VP's office is going to carry the heavy load of responsibility for the Plame affair. Karl may survive -- but still not sure.

On other fronts, Maureen Dowd tied the prospect of Fitzgerald indictments to the Scowcroft and Wilkerson revelations this week in an New York Times piece today.

I also did a lot of interviews today, one of which included a session that included Col. Lawrence Wilkerson as a guest as well on Warren Olney's "To the Point."

Lastly, before I go take some more pain killers for my back pain, the hip crowd will be interested to know that Lawrence Wilkerson's talk at New America will be used, clips anyway, on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central.

Amidst all this tragedy, confusion, and scandal -- a little levity may be helpful. . .just a little.

-- Steve Clemons

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: further commentary from CBS's John Roberts

This just out.

Scott McClellan has just thrown Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the wolves today when a reporter asked whether White House press responses could be trusted give Scott's earlier denials that anyone in the White House had anything to do with outing Valerie Plame Wilson.

My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MCCLELLAN: I think you can be, because you know that our relationship is built on trust. And I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I made, and I've talked to you about the assurances that I had received on that.

The pressure is building.

-- Steve Clemons