Like I said, analysis takes a little longer...

The excerpt below is from consortiumnews.com. I'm reading the author's book right now, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.

It's a good read and has lots of great information. I'm right at the beginning of the Reagan years now and I'm being reminded of a lot of the things I learned while at Berkeley regarding the "October Surprise" with the hostages in Iran and our horrible policies in Central America. A lot of the same people from the Nixon and Reagan years are in power now. And it seems like maybe they are using the same play book and expecting a different result.

Bush:Nixon as Iraq:Vitenam as Plamegate/Libbygate:Watergate as 1972 elections:2004 elections and so on.

From the article:

...Though the new court document does not say Bush ordered his subordinates to leak Plame’s identity, the President’s alleged initiative to have Libby disclose the secret CIA analysis appears to have set the stage for the Plame disclosure as well.

Despite Bush’s deceptive public pronouncements, the more important legal question is what Bush told Fitzgerald when the President submitted to a 70-minute interview – not under oath – on June 24, 2004.

If Bush misled the prosecutor about authorizing Libby to brief a reporter, then Bush himself could be open to charges of making false statements or obstructing justice, potential felonies and possibly impeachable offenses.

Also deserving an explanation is the curious trip that Fitzgerald reportedly made to the office of Bush’s personal criminal attorney, James Sharp, on the morning of Oct. 28, 2005, just before announcing the indictment of Libby on charges of obstruction, perjury and false statements. [NYT, Oct. 29, 2005]

It’s unclear why Fitzgerald would take time out of his very busy schedule that day to visit Bush’s personal lawyer unless Fitzgerald had to pass on sensitive information about Bush’s status in the investigation. Possibilities range from telling Bush that he would not be named in the Libby indictment to saying he had become an investigative target.

Attorney Sharp accompanied Bush on June 24, 2004, when the President was questioned about the Plame case, CNN reported.

Bush “was pleased to do his part to help the investigation move forward,” spokesman McClellan said after the interview. “No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President does.” But McClellan declined to comment about the substance of what Bush told Fitzgerald or whether Bush was a target of the investigation.

At the time, some Democrats questioned why Bush would need a criminal attorney at his side if he had nothing to hide.

“White House claims that they are fully cooperating with this investigation seem at odds with the President feeling the need to hire a private lawyer,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Jano Cabrera.

Despite such touchy moments, Bush did succeed in keeping the lid on the Plame case before the November 2004 elections...

More to come on this, I'm sure.