Libby verdict

Once we knew it was Richard Armitage who had first given Valerie Plame's name to the media, I lost interest in the whole affair. I guess I just assumed everyone else had too, except of course those directly involved in the Libby prosecution.

So, I'm kind of surprised by the 'excitement' in the papers today. The Guardian, in particular, editorialized about the verdict. Under a headline of 'Lies about crimes' the Guardian says,

.... [t]he outing of Ms Plame was a criminal act against the wife of an administration critic. Mr Libby lied about it. He presumably did it to protect Mr Cheney, who wanted to punish the Wilsons. Mr Libby's conviction therefore raises very direct questions about Mr Cheney's own position.

The second reason is because, at bottom, Mr Libby's lies concerned Iraq. The administration wanted to invade Iraq. Mr Cheney, and through him Mr Libby, was not particular about how to do it. When Mr Wilson publicly questioned the weapons of mass destruction case for war he therefore made himself a Cheney enemy. As a consequence, the White House took its revenge on him through his wife. Mr Libby lied to protect not just his boss but his boss's unjust war. That's why yesterday's verdict matters. This affair is not over yet - not by a long chalk.

In fact, it may well be over because Patrick Fitzgerald says he's going back to his day job. And, seeing as there's no prosecution of Richard Armitage, it looks like what we had was lies about no crime, not 'lies about crimes'.

I guess I'm compelled to read loads more now to see if I can find what it is I missed, but this still looks pretty uninteresting.