There is one other benefit, from Bush’s perspective, to announcing the investigation: it signals to Congressial Republicans that he is attacking and in so doing, tells them to circle the wagons before hearings start. There he might have more success- Pat Roberts knows what he has to do. I suspect Bush has enough IOUs from Specter to block any meaningful inquiries in the Judicial Committe, but I would like to be wrong.

Well, we know Bush is a slow learner, but a whole year?

Your observations are right on target.

Wonderful: â€The accused doesn’t get to judge the jury.â€

mamayaga

Not if they demonstrably came forward independently. Bob Graham, after all (no idea if he really is a source for this), would have a difficult time conspiring with Comey, since they weren’t in the briefed group at the same time.

this comment is not directly related to this post, but i have been thinking:

to my mind there is something missing in this nsa scandal.

terrorists are bad guys but they are not so bad, so numerous, or so effective as to demand bush extend nsa spying beyond the fisa rules.

i keep wondering if there is not something else behind bush’s decision to expand the spying.

what?

i dont know. possibly preparing for the iraq war. possibly looking for european, u.n., or middle-eastern government oppositon to an iraq invasion.

possibly looking at u.s. internal oppostion to the war.

if bush could sit in crawford in august 2001 and read warnings of immenient terrorist action in the u.s. but still not act, it seems unlikely he would get so disturbed about terrorism that he would go beyond the fisa requirements just to get a bit more info.

plus,

the bush administrations modus operandi is to use events like terrorism or katrina or the need for adequate medical care as an excuse or opportunity to expand their reach or powqer for other, ideiological, right wing policy purposes.

i wonder if that m.o. applies here.

emptywheel,

I disagree to a certain extent. Yes, the actions of the individuals who will be attacked matter a great deal, but the actions of our other institutions matter just as much. The Congress is going to be under attack in the Abramoff matter (and in an election year, no less). The media are barely functioning. The fate of our democracy will likely depend on the strength of commitment to public service in the bureaucracy and judiciary. People are going to take great personal risks in the service of some pretty abstract concepts. If they aren’t supported by professional civil servants and judges, I fear it will be all for naught.

On a related point, I was wondering how much of what we’re seeing from Bush might be bluster to prevent further leaks on unrelated subjects. If I’m BushCo, and I know I’ve alienated the civil service, then the most horrifying possibility, worse even than losing Iraq, is seeing the leaks from the civil service turn into a hemorrhage extending over three years. If you’re inclined to view the leak of Plame’s NOC status and the War on the CIA as deliberate hostile acts, then those would have been opening shots in this same battle: the battle to intimidate the underlings and keep them quiet. (Who leaked that business about the DoJ and DeLay’s redistricting anyway? We got a new Supreme Court case out of that.)

Whether they’ve got the power to punish a leaker or not, they’ve sure got to act like they do. I have nothing else to offer on the subject and a lot I’d like to learn, but aside from their motivations that stem directly from the NSA case, I wanted to (re)draw our attention to a parallel motive to stop this thing from happening again. I’m certainly prepared to believe they’ve got a lot bigger secrets to hide than this.

Texas Dem

To add to what you’re saying, I suspect it is not a mistake that the Brits tried to prevent the publication of the Uzbekistan torture memos (and succeeded in preventing the publication of the Bomb Al Jazeera memo) using the Official Secrets Act. These guys have been mirroring each other from day one, releasing â€intelligence†at the same time, attacking critics (David Kelly, Wilson) at the same time, conducting the same kind of whitewash after the fact. Somewhere Tony and Bush probably decided that if they take a hard line they can put the genie back in the bottle.

It didn’t work with the Uzbek memos–and the leaker there is absolutely known. Craig Murray called their bluff and they have (so far, at least) flinched. Which is another reason I think their prosecution may backfire. If they create too many Craig Murrays, their credibility will really be shot.