THE Question: Why did Libby Lie? If he had nothing to hide?

If you don't have anything to worry about why worry?

I know they have to be wondering if Libby will squeal.

who he probably never dreamed would be forced to give up sources. Remember some of the evidence Fitz gave to the judge when playing hardball with the reporters was reported as classified.

don't you have the narcissism to believe that you must lie to protect the rest of your people? I think L loved being in the role of playing cloak and dagger with J*dy-NYT-Pulitzer-babe, just as he loved being part of the hardware side of the WH. Remember, this is a Yalie who loves to ski dangerously fast and wear wild west costumes. I think he gets great satisfaction from believing he is protecting that core of ideas that the Dickster has been masterminding for all these years.

PATRICK FITZGERALD: "I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

of the investigation. He could not have known at that time that it would ever end up in the hands of an independent special counsel and therefore felt he could lie with impunity because the case would go nowhere. Once he had lied and it was on the record, it would be much more difficult to reconcile his lie by being truthful. He is also a very arrogant, egotistical man who, no doubt, felt he could 'best' Fitzgerald and he has been proven wrong, imo.

They yammer all around and never ask this basic question. It's obvious, yet avoided.

this Iraq invasion by lying about Saddam having WMD. The yellow cake deal was one more lying excuse to invade. Anything that discredited the invasion had to be gutted or destroyed. Wilson put the main plan in jeopardy so they went full bore to bring him down. It doesn't sound like Fitz is going to deal with the root of the problem even though it cost 2,000 lives. However it is getting more obvious every day what a bunch of assholes * surrounded himself with.

we're supposed to believe this whole plot didn't get passed before him. I mean it's possible, but Cheney and Rove definitely had to know.

There is no other logical explanation.

I don't know if that is THE QUESTION or not, but I know what ever it is, the answer is 42.

Under a presumption of innocence, the question is bogus. If he has lied, he may have lied for a number of reasons:

1. To protect himself from prosecution for a more serious crime
2. To protect an associate
3. To protect an ideal in which he believes strongly
4. As a form of protest against what he sees as a bullshit charge
5. Because he has a faulty recollection of events
6. Because he's under duress
7. Because he's been paid off
8. Because he was ordered to do so by someone to whom he's loyal
9. Because he thinks he can beat a charge of perjury
10. Because he thought he could get away with the lie.

Etc. etc. etc.

Hell, and that's just off the top of my head at one in the morning. It's a grave mistake to assume that an innocent person will freely and honestly spill his guts to a grand jury. Everyone has something to hide, even if it's not a crime.