The return of Scooter

Scooter Libby's trial begins Tuesday. Although most people consider this case a piece of partisan puffery with no merit, it nevertheless figures to be an interesting excursion into the world of politics and journalism on the highest levels.

Conservatives see the trial as a witch-hunt, an opinion bolstered by the odd revelation that prosecutor Fitzgerald knew the identity of the leaker from the get-go, as relayed by DC busybody Bob Woodward.

We're left to assume Fitzgerald tried to set traps for Bush administration officials, knowing they didn't know he knew the leaker in an attempt to uncover a wider conspiracy. Lacking much smoke, perhaps Fitzgerald is allowing this fire to flicker with the hope that exposing Libby as a lying water-carrier for Bush/Cheney will spur further investigation.

The some in the lefty blogosphere has already commenced their pre-trial tailgate party holding out hope of seeing at least somebody frog-marched to pacify their massive Rove disappointment. All this dovetails nicely with Waxman's investigation roulette wheel, producing visions of impeachment sugarplums in many liberal heads.

But even if Fitzgerald's tactic is successful it doesn't answer the central question of why Wilson was sent to Africa in the first place. Earlier questions remain largely unanswered. Groping for a reason behind Wilson's op-ed, Libby surmised to Miller that the CIA was trying to set up a self-protecting CYA. It was becoming clear by then that Saddam did not have the WMD stockpiles maintained in most CIA assessments, including those given to the President.

Some on the left see the fact that Valerie Plame worked in the WINPAC section at Langley on Iraqi WMDs as proof of just how serious the outing was, but at the same time that also seems to support the "uh oh, we're screwed" scenario Libby was describing, perhaps a reason for the junket. Bureaucrats work in mysterious ways sometimes.

Fast forward to the present. It's doubtful Cheney would agree to take the stand if anything remotely incriminating might trickle out. In my humble opinion his reasons are as follows, 1) he is a genuine friend of Libby's, 2) he believes his testimony will show the level of threat we were facing at the time, countering assertions from Wilson the war was pointless, and 3) it could expose Joe Wilson's group as the real "cabal".

There's another possibility. Perhaps Cheney's willingness to testify is a bluff designed to scare certain entities into retreat to keep the spotlight off cabal-friendly journalists or connections with high-ranking Democrat Party members.

Finally, the trial might resuscitate Libby's infamous letter to Times reporter Judy Miller while she was in jail writing her book. Here are the last two paragraphs of that letter, for the sake of posterity:

I admire your principled fight with the Government. But for my part, this is the rare case where this "source" would be better off if you testified. That's one reason why I waived over a year ago, and in large measure, why I write again today. Consider this the Miller Corollary:"It's okay to testify about a privileged communication, when the person you seek to protect has waived the privilege and would be better off if you testify." If you can find a way to testify about discussions we had, if any, that relate to the Wilson-Plame matter, I remain today just as interested as I was over a year ago.

You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work - and life.

Secret message? Threat? Melodramatic prose? Love note? Harmless? You decide. As for myself, it looks like a message that her testimony would help more than hurt, just like it says. He knew someone else had told her about Plame first. He may have suspected the source.

But it doesn't explain the last paragraph, the odd one. I find it interesting he didn't mention Iraqi WMDs, yet did mention biological threats and the Iranian nuke program in the same breath. The 'turn in clusters' comment with regards to Aspen (Institute?) can only be understood by the players themselves.