The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Full coverage of the indictment of the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, including excerpts from a statement by the special prosecutor; and the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks. The other news of the day will be at the end of the program tonight.

INDICTED

JIM LEHRER: The vice president's chief of staff was indicted today in the CIA leak investigation. Lewis "Scooter" Libby immediately resigned. The indictment accused him of obstructing justice, committing perjury before a federal grand jury, and making false statements to federal agents -- five counts in all. Libby was not charged with actually leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003. Her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, challenged pre-war intelligence about Iraq. The leak sparked the investigation two years ago. In a written statement, Libby said he's confident he will be exonerated. Vice President Cheney did not speak publicly about the indictment. But in a written statement, he praised Libby's years of public service and he said: I have accepted his decision to resign with deep regret.' He went on to say, An accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity,' Later, President Bush had this to say as he left the White House to go to Camp David for the weekend.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Scooter's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the vice president and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history. Special counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious. And now the proceedings -- the process moves into a new phase.

While we're all saddened by today's news, we remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country. I got a job to do, and so do the people that work in the White House. We've got a job to protect the American people, and that's what we'll continue working hard to do.

I look forward to working with Congress on policies to keep this economy moving. And pretty soon, I'll be naming somebody to the Supreme Court.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Bush's top aide, Karl Rove, was not indicted today. But his lawyer said Rove was told he remains under investigation. He appeared upbeat as he went to work this morning.

REPORTER: Mr. Rove, what's your mood today?

KARL ROVE: I'm going to have a great Friday and a fantastic weekend. I hope you do too.

JIM LEHRER: Leading Democrats charged the real story goes far beyond Lewis Libby. Sen. Minority Leader Reid said, It's about the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster his case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.' The special counsel in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, said today the substantial bulk of his work is complete. But he added, "It's not over."

FOCUS - INDICTED

JIM LEHRER: Special prosecutor Fitzgerald spoke for over an hour at his news conference this afternoon, outlining the case behind the Libby indictment and then taking questions about it. Here are extended excerpts.

PATRICK FITZGERALD, Special Counsel: A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia, returned a five-count indictment I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of a federal grand jury, two counts of perjury, and two count of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context. Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003 the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA Officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us.

It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column July 14, 2003 but Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA.

Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, an investigation began and in October 2003, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff; he's also an assistant to the president, and assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

The focus was interview was what was it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he need about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And, to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the F.B.I. a compelling story. What he told the F.B.I. is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA.

He told the F.B.I. that he learned that information as if it were new and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert, and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times. And he told the F.B.I. that when he passed the information on, on July 12, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the F.B.I. that when he passed the information on to the reporters, he made clear that he did not know if this were true; this was something that all the reporters were saying, and in fact, he just didn't know. He wanted to be clear of that.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury. On two occasions, in March of 2004, he took an oath and he testified, and he essentially said the same thing. He said that in fact he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during his phone call, he learned it as if it were new, and when he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters, and that he told the reporters, that in fact he didn't even know if it were true; he was just passing gossip from one reporter to another, the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that would lead the F.B.I. to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment. In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's life. He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert and if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges. The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials. And let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson, or his wife in imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11, and from the vice president on or about June 12.

It's also clear as set forth in the indictment that some time prior to July 8, he learned it from somebody else working in the vice president's office. So at least four people in the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as Wilson's wife, working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for help organize a trip Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times, Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials. It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14, 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer, in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

It's also alleged in the indictment, that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7, 2003 over lunch. What's important about that, Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was it telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with Mr. -- The press secretary on July 7, it was also a discussion on or about July 8, in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

So there were at least discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claimed he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned the information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to reporters. And the account he gave to the F.B.I. and the grand jury is that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week on July 12 that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters.

Other reporters were saying this and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true, and, in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14, 2003: On three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion, with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The first occasion on which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back on June 23, 2003, just days after an article appeared on line in the New Republic, which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8, 2003. And during that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official, and when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer. During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA and finally again July 12.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said this is something that other reporters are saying. Mr. Libby never said this is something that I don't know if it's true. Mr. Libby never said I don't even know if she had a wife.

At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another was not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter, and that he lied about it afterwards under oath, and repeatedly.

REPORTER: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation, but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

PATRICK FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. Okay, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll it will you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute. It could not be extended but it's an ordinary course it keep a grand jury open to consider other matters and that's what we'll be doing.

Let me then answer your next question -- why is it a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? As you're sitting here now asking he what his motives were, I can't it will you; we haven't charged it. So what you're saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the very fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge. This is a very serious matter. And compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important.

We need to know the truth, and anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct, and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime. I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

REPORTER: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have any evidence that the Vice President of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it, or encouraged him to lie about leaking it?

PATRICK FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone in our charge in indictment. Let me back up because I know what that sounds like to people if you're sitting at home. We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment. I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses. We made no allegation that the vice president committed a criminal act; we made any allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.

But as to any person, you ask me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything.

REPORTER: Is Karl Rove off the hook, and are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.

PATRICK FITZGERALD: All I can say is the same answer I gave before. If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named because we either charge someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

REPORTER: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation in hope in some way, and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises. Does this indictment do that?

PATRICK FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it, should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether a person, whether Mr. Libby lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove if the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate and this is focused on a narrow transaction and I think anyone who is concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that. They will be frustrated, and, frankly, it would just -- it wouldn't be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.

JIM LEHRER: That was special counsel Fitzgerald speaking this afternoon.

More now from Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And to analyze these indictments and the legal case being against Lewis Libby, we're joined by two experienced prosecutors: Robert Ray worked for and as independent counsel on the Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and White House Travel Office Investigations during the Clinton years; previously he and Patrick Fitzgerald served together as assistant U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York. Richard Ben-Veniste served as assistant U.S. attorney during the Watergate scandal and was chief counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Whitewater committee.

Welcome to you both.

Mr. Ray, as a former prosecutor, how does this case look to you?

ROBERT RAY: Well, it's the beginning of the process. An indictment has been returned; as we're always taught as prosecutors and reminded by judges, the indictment in some sense to the trial process means nothing. It's simply an accusation. And it's the commencement of legal proceedings. Obviously, this is what we refer to as a speaking indictment, and we now know a little bit more than we did before about --

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, what does "a speaking indictment" mean?

ROBERT RAY: Well, it means something more than just the allegations involving, you know, the bare-bone charge, but explain, as Mr. Fitzgerald did at the press conference, a little bit more about the context under which he alleges that false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury have been committed.

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Ben-Veniste, based on what's laid out in these indictments right in front of you and what you heard Fitzgerald say, as another former prosecutor, how strong a case does this look? Is this a hand you'd like to play?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think what we heard today was a piece of an opening statement at the trial. As Robert said, this indictment lays out the facts in chapter and verse in a dispassionate but very detailed way.

It lays out the fact that from four separate independent sources within the government Mr. Libby received information about Mr. Wilson and his wife. Yet, in statements to the F.B.I. and then subsequent statements on two occasions, under oath, before the grand jury, he claimed that he first learned this information from the press, from three different individuals in the press who he claimed he had no knowledge about the underlying facts before he heard that information from the press.

And it sounds like Mr. Fitzgerald would argue that he thought he could safely hide behind and disguise the true facts because he never believed that the individuals from the media with whom he had these discussions would ever testify about them.

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Ray, how hard or easy will it be to take this case to trial to prove this at trial, given just the evidence that is laid out in the indictment?

ROBERT RAY: I think it's safe to say that perjury cases and false statements cases are very difficult to prove because they're not simply about proving that statements that were made were false. You have to go further, and you have to prove that at the time the statements were made, they were intentionally false.

In this particular case, though, Prosecutor Fitzgerald has laid out a case that is not simply about allegations involving an isolated occurrence or two but he emphasized at his press conference this afternoon that the critical component ever those allegations, which is the sum and substance of the obstruction charge, that what is alleged here was a repeat effort to mislead first investigators and then the grand jury.

MARGARET WARNER: And so, Mr. Ben-Veniste, does that make it just following up on what he said -- does that make it easier to prove or more complicated to prove?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: It makes it easier to prove because the defense will be that this was an honest mistake, if in fact it is shown that the statements he made were inaccurate or false.

Then the question is whether they were knowingly false, and whether the information that was alleged to be false was material to the investigation. In all of those instances, the prosecutor has now laid out the reason why they were important and material, and the reason why it would not be credible to believe that this was inadvertent since it was repeated, and since there were so many different sources within the government for that information, how could Mr. Libby have been mistaken in thinking he received that information in the first instance from the press.

This was a detailed investigation of Mr. Wilson and his family and his connections, and as the result of that, he was armed with information, which he then subsequently, according to this indictment, discussed with the press.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying, in other words, the prosecutor would argue, look at all these conversations that he had with other members of the administration, and you bring them all in to testify, and then say, so how could he come in and tell the grand jury that the first he heard of it was Tim Russert, and he never even discussed it with Tim Russert.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: That's right. Mr. Russert said he never had that conversation, as well as the other individuals with whom Mr. Libby apparently testified he learned about the connection of Mrs. Wilson when in fact those individuals claim he was the source of that information.

MARGARET WARNER: Robert Ray, how would you defend -- if Scooter' Libby were your client, what is the defense here?

ROBERT RAY: What the prosecutor is looking to do is to show, as I've suggested, a pattern of activity, and the allegations, therefore, center around on the back end the discussions that Mr. Libby allegedly had with more than one reporter now.

It's not just simply Judith Wilson, not simply Tim Russert, but Mr. Cooper. And so it's really the combination of all those things.

I think it still, obviously, would be a case defended, as every one of these cases would be defended, on the question of intent, that that was not his intention, and that his effort was not to mislead investigators, and that there was, you know, a failure of recollection that ultimately played out in terms of the multiple statements that he made, but that what he was not trying to do here was to violate the law.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ray, also, explain what -- and reporters asked this several times this afternoon -- Fitzgerald said her job, Valerie Wilson's job, the fact of her job at the agency was classified.

And he also alleged that Scooter' Libby told several reporters about it, people not authorized to know this. Why couldn't he, wouldn't he bring a charge of disclosing classified information?

ROBERT RAY: Mr. Fitzgerald pointedly declined to answer that question. And there really can be only two reasons why he would have not brought charges here in connection with the types of statutes that you're describing.

One possibility is that he may have concluded simply that he didn't have sufficient evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The second may be even assuming that he could prove it, he may have decided to exercise his discretion not to charge those offenses.

A good prosecutor knows when to say enough, and the worst mistake you can make is over charge a case.

In connection with, for example, the Classified Information Statute, I think most observers of that statute have correctly pointed out that that statute sweeps rather broadly. And it gets into questions as a matter of discretion as to which cases are appropriate to prosecute, given the vagaries of our system of classifying information and un-classifying or declassifying information.

It's hard to pick and choose and divide lines between, you know, what's over the line and what isn't, and also it bumps up against legitimate parameters of the First Amendment, and the need of the press to know information that involves the operations at the highest levels of government.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I would agree with that, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Yes.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: In that I think Pat Fitzgerald explicitly discussed the fact that this is a very broad statute, and that he did not feel that it was appropriate under the circumstances of this case to use it.

And this is a statute that can have a terribly chilling effect on the ability of individuals to discuss important matters with the press that warrant discussion.

This case has turned everything on its head. It's turned whistle blowers on its head because you have someone who was trying to hide behind nondisclosure by the press, and use the press as a shield for his own information.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly, let me just ask you, how did you read his language, Fitzgerald's, and body language about continuing this investigation?

ROBERT RAY: I think I can answer that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

ROBERT RAY: The -- the body language that I saw, which I think has escaped some attention, is that while it is nominally true that Mr. Rove remains under investigation, I think the signal was quite clear that if there is a cloud hanging over Mr. Rove, it is very far in the distance now, and if anything, I'm sure that Mr. Rove has breathed a heavy sigh of relief and can go back to doing what he was doing before this investigation commenced.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly, do you agree?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I do agree. I think that the substantive part of the investigation is more or less wrapped up. But a grand jury will be utilized, Mr. Fitzgerald said, if more information comes forward. He has also indicated that Mr. Rove is still under investigation.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Richard Ben-Veniste, and Robert Ray, thank you both.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Ray Suarez with more on Lewis Libby.

RAY SUAREZ: So who is Lewis "Scooter" Libby? We'll get some answers from two journalists who have recently written about Libby and his role in the administration and in the Iraq war. Mark Leibovich is a reporter for the Washington Post and author of a recent profile of Libby. And George Packer is a staff writer at the New Yorker and the author of the new book The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq.'

George Packer, does that title "vice presidential chief of staff" adequately get at Lewis Libby's stature within the vice president's office and in the White House as a whole?

GEORGE PACKER: It doesn't. He is his chief of staff, and probably the most powerful vice presidential chief of staff in history; he's also his national security adviser.

But Libby is a prot(c)g(c) not of Cheney but Paul Wolfowitz. And they go back to 1972 when Wolfowitz taught at Yale and Libby was a student of his. Wolfowitz brought Libby to Washington in '81 to work in the Reagan State Department, and then brought him again into government in '89 when Wolfowitz became the number three at the Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Libby became his deputy. And Wolfowitz and Libby work very closely together, among other things, developing an Iraq war plan after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that eerily resembled Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. It called for a move into Iraq, deep into Iraq, by a light force. That was eventually scrapped, but it gave you an idea of the kind of thinking that Wolfowitz and Libby shared.

And then once again in 1992, Cheney deputized Wolfowitz and Libby to oversee the drafting of what came to be called the Defense Planning Guidance, which was a broad look at post-Cold War American defense and military policy, which, again, foreshadowed the Bush doctrine of preempting threats and creating such American military power that there would be no rivals, that we would deter all rivals.

So, in a way, to understand how Libby got to where he is today, you have to look at the history of Paul Wolfowitz.

RAY SUAREZ: Mark Leibovich, Vice President Cheney is often described as one of the most powerful and influential vice presidents in history. Did Vice President Cheney's clout enhance Lewis Libby's?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Oh, absolutely. I don't think you become the most powerful vice presidential aide perhaps in history if you don't have the most perhaps most powerful vice president in history to answer to.

I mean, he also has a third title in addition to chief of staff and national security to Cheney, which is assistant to the president, and Scooter Libby, unlike really any vice presidential deputy in recent memory, is treated very much like a principal within the White House, which means that he goes to very high-level meetings, whether it's on the economy and more commonly on national security.

So certainly, I mean, their fortunes are very intertwined, and Libby is a very, very dominant figure, not just in Vice President Cheney's office, but in the White House at large.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Mark, take us back to 2002 and 2003, when Amb. Joe Wilson made his trip to Africa, when the administration was making its case for war. What was Scooter Libby doing?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, he was clearly part of the administration that was making case for war. I mean, he was certainly a hawk within the administration. I mean, he and Wolfowitz who, as George has said, they go back many, many decades, were true believers, and Scooter Libby has had Saddam Hussein on his radar for a many decades. His portfolio during the first Gulf War at the Pentagon included germ warfare and the biochemical -- the biological capabilities of Saddam Hussein.

And that really crystallized a lot of interest for him for many, many years. And he's also, like Cheney, been someone who has been very, very interested in terrorism for many, many years, certainly preceding Sept. 11, and the two of them really do share a world view, which is that there is evil in the world, and it must be dealt with swiftly and they're both students of history and they've met with the same historians and talked to the same historians, and certainly Libby was a very fierce advocate of the president's case for going to war in 2002 -- in 2003.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, George Packer did, Lewis Libby have specific tasks during that time that he performed, either in a way that could be seen by the public or was instrumental behind the scenes?

GEORGE PACKER: I think precisely he was not seen by the public. He was the soul of discretion, sort of the ultimate behind-the-scenes official. He was Cheney's Cheney. He was crucially placed to receive intelligence and policy ideas from his colleagues and neoconservative allies at the Pentagon, starting with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglass Feif and those who worked under him in the policy office.

And I think that is a role that the public doesn't really know very much about, and it also involves some of the post-war planning, most of which -- the blame for which has been laid at the feet of the Pentagon, not the vice president's office, but perhaps as this case unfolds, we're going to have the veil lifted on the vice president's office and we'll find out exactly what role that office played in some of the mistakes that were made as we went to war in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Mark, you just heard George Packer call this person Cheney's Cheney, and talk about him as a behind-the-scene indictment. Today in the indictment a lot of phone calls with reporters were spelled out in exhaustive detail. What was this behind-the-scenes guy doing burning up the phone lines during 2003?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Being behind the scenes certainly doesn't preclude having deep background, you know, conversations with a lot of reporters. I mean, you know, being behind the scenes is also not synonymous with being a shrinking violet.

I mean, he is Libby has been extremely aggressive in courting the press I mean, a lot of members of the press know him fairly well. He's always very polite, very, very solicitous. He often returns calls. But, again, it's always on deep background, and I don't think he in his wildest imagination believed that such a detailed cataloguing of his conversations with reporters would come to light as it has.

So, you know, Vice President Cheney, you know, despite his behind-the-scenes career, at least perceived to be a sort of -- a loyal behind-the-scenes player has courted the press also. So that's certainly part ever his job.

And, you know, just as Vice President Cheney doesn't have a specific area in the White House, he's been given the freedom and the power by the president to kind of freelance and look around at whatever interests him, in whatever the president has assigned him too, and Libby is the same way.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's talk a little bit more specifically about the mentioning of Ambassador Wilson and his connection to Valerie Wilson. Would that have been also something that falls into his portfolio, damage control, or, you know, payback?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, you know, I certainly can't speak to his motives, but, obviously, you know, they're arguing against dissent for the invasion was a big part of what they were concerned about on a day-to-day basis. Whether Joe Wilson was an actual threat -- was an actual influencer of public opinion or whether he wasn't is, you know, anybody's analysis.

But, clear, I mean, if you look at the records, and if you look at people who have spoken to Libby, and clearly Joe Wilson is someone he was preoccupied with, and I think it is part of a larger -- for lack of a better term, marking effort, to sell the administration's point of view, which happened to fly in the face of some of the things that Joe Wilson was saying and writing, also.

RAY SUAREZ: George Packer, today the vice president -- yeah, go ahead.

GEORGE PACKER: Libby was part of something called the "White House Iraq group" which was set up in the summer of 2002 to prepare the public for the coming war in Iraq.

It was a -- very much a public relations effort to make the case for war. Libby was a core member of that group, so that definitely fell within his portfolio in the vice president's office.

RAY SUAREZ: Is this, George Packer, a big loss for the vice president?

GEORGE PACKER: I think it has to be considered a tremendous loss. Libby has been at his side in all the key decisions since Sept. 11. He was at those meetings in Camp David when the response to 9/11 was debated. He and Paul Wolfowitz were the first to argue for an attack on Iraq after Sept. 11. He had a lot invested, therefore in the Iraq war. Cheney had a lot invested in him and I think his departure has to be a great blow to the vice president.

RAY SUAREZ: George Packer, Mark Leibovich, thank you both.

Jim.

FOCUS SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Ray.

JIM LEHRER: Now, how all of this looks to Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

David, just in general what, do you think of this action today against with Lewis Libby?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the crucial fact is that it's about Lewis Libby. This is not quite the lone leaker, but this is about really the actions of one individual.

The danger for the White House was always going to be that there would be a perception there's a cancer on the White House -- that there would be a conspiracy involving Rove and maybe several other people.

It's now clear there aren't going to be indictments of several other people, and as the prosecutor said, probably not about Rove.

And so we've had a great prosecutor, Fitzgerald, look for 22 months into this administration with all sorts of access, and he's found there's no sort of broad conspiracy.

So while this is certainly a bad day for the administration, it's a day that the administration will probably survive because there is no sort of cancer on the presidency.

JIM LEHRER: How do you see it, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Jim, I think you can make case that Lewis Libby was a high enough person in the White House, an influential, an independent enough person -- based on Ray's excellent interview with Mark Leibovich and George Packer -- that he could operate on his own. He was a single operator.

But at the same time, he was a loyal staff man, and there's very little question what he was about, he wasn't on a rogue mission. I mean he was trying to shoot down the criticism of the very premise for going to war that Joe Wilson raised, and they did it in a way that, quite frankly, was reckless in terms of Victoria (Valerie) Plame.

So I think it gives you an indication of just how committed ideologically, even though un-deflected by reality and evidence and experience, these people were about that Iraqi war.

JIM LEHRER: David, do you think the war, like it or not, is going to become part of this trial in a major way, beyond Lewis Libby as an individual?

DAVID BROOKS: No, I really don't. Fitzgerald said very clearly this is not about the war. This is about somebody who allegedly lied to some reporters and most importantly, lied to the grand jury. So this is not about the larger issue of going to war. Joe Wilson isn't really even about that.

It's about the trip to Niger, which is off to the side about whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

And, I'll be honest. When I look at Scooter, someone I know -- I've gone to lunch with him for a couple of times and he's always been a terrible source because he never told me anything -- but one of the things I will always wonder about him is why was he so obsessed with Joe Wilson.

There were many broad issues about WMD's. Everybody thought Saddam had ‘em going in, Democrat or Republican. We now know that was untrue.

But Joe Wilson was sort of off to the side, so why was Scooter so obsessed talking to so many reporters over a long period of time about him? I still find that mystifying.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Reid, David, said this today, that this is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its cases for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.' You disagree with Sen. Reid.

DAVID BROOKS: No, I really think this is a case of overreaching, almost a case of paranoia and sort of conspiracy mongering.

We've had a prosecutor -- who is a very good prosecutor -- go for 22 months in this administration with more cooperation than any reporter has ever had, anybody has ever had before. If there was a big conspiracy here, surely he would have had, (a), some indictments about the underlying crime; and surely he would have had more people than Scooter Libby.

But when you listened to that press conference, it was about one person, and it was about somebody calling a series of reporters, not about a big conspiracy, not about broader issues. It was about obstructing justice at the grand jury.

JIM LEHRER: Mark? You see it differently.

MARK SHIELDS: I do see it differently. I agree with David on Patrick Fitzgerald. I mean, I thought that what he did today was truly impressive.

I mean, we saw a large slice of it in the opening part of the show. But this is somebody with no notes, no teleprompter, and in total command of the facts, but with no arrogance and no cockiness.

And it was quite disarming in the way he dodged questions, said, look I'm not going to answer that, ducked it, and everything else.

But I thought he made, you know, a very, very strong case. But what he showed more than anything else was this enormous respect for the law -- that he would not go beyond where the law took him. I mean, that's what he was about, and that's what his career has been about. But, remember

JIM LEHRER: In other words, if somebody is going to make the conspiracy charge, Patrick Fitzgerald is not going to make it, but you think it's still there to be made?

MARK SHIELDS: David doesn't need to be reminded, the official White House position, repeated time and again by the principal spokesman, the president's spokesman, was that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and Elliot Abrams had never been involved in these leaks at all, and that each of them had assured him, Scott McClellan, and presumably the president, that they had not been involved in these leaks.

Well, we know that's not the case. I mean, we know David is right, there was almost an obsession with Libby. I mean, he was talking to -- according to Patrick Fitzgerald, he was talking to all manner of people about Joe Wilson's wife.

JIM LEHRER: What does this more generally -- also picking up on what David said, that he doesn't believe this really does that much damage to the White House itself, to the president, the vice president, it's strictly Scooter Libby? Do you --

MARK SHIELDS: I think, Jim, I mean, we understand this, that Dick Cheney is the most influential vice president in the history of the country, and Scooter Libby was the most influential chief of staff that a vice president's ever had, and as, again, in Ray's segment, he was an assistant to the president. He was somebody who was at all the meetings. He was at Camp David.

You don't get a lot of vice presidential people showing up at Camp David on a any regular basis. So was he important? Was it as symbolically important as Karl Rove being indicted? Absolutely not. Karl Rove is the person that conservatives love as their champion and that liberals loathe as a villain.

That would have been a bigger story.

But I think that if this goes to trial, I think the trial could, quite frankly, be a continuing source of embarrassment. The irony here is, if -- the United States -- an ordinary United States citizen to lie to federal officials is a crime.

But for federal officials to lie to the American people, apparently is not -- is a matter of course. I mean, Karl Rove is still working at the White House, I mean, even though he lied to us and lied, presumably lied to the president about his involvement.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think about that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, clearly there were lies told about Rove's role, but to me the most damaging thing, the way I would look at the administration, the way I think a lot of Americans would look at the administration was if they had really a rogue operation, which you really did see in the Nixon administration, sort of this rogue conspiracy to intentionally expose a covert operative for political gain, and if there were a bunch of people sitting around a room talking about this, then you really get a sense of a malevolence.

And, frankly, when you looked at the run-up to these indictments, all the focus was on Rove; there was talk about five indictments. And if that had happened, this would have been a cataclysmic really credibility-ending day for the administration.

But as it is, as I say, it's a bad day. Scooter Libby was a very important person in that administration, but it is not a credibility ending because it is so much about one person's actions.

JIM LEHRER: David, what about the issue that was raised before today by some Republican senators, even, that if the indictments -- no matter who was indicted, if it was just for what they call technical things, like perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, that that's not a big deal, compared to what it would be of leaking classified information, et cetera. Where do you come down on that today?

DAVID BROOKS: If anybody makes that argument after Fitzgerald's presentation at his press conference, the person is an idiot. I think Fitzgerald did a fantastic job of saying why this is an important thing, and the argument was, this is not something at the end of the judicial process.

Telling the truth to a grand jury is the basis of the judicial process. So I think that argument died today.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I do agree with David. And one other thing David wrote this week, and other people have as well, but David made a very strong case that in the second term of an administration, the Bush administration in this case, insulation, isolation, and exhaustion set in, and there's a need for change, a need for fresh blood, just as President Reagan did with bringing in Howard Baker.

There had been talk around town that maybe former Congressman Vin Weber, former Republican Sen. Bill Cohen, somebody like that would come to the White House.

I think as a consequence today, when Karl Rove doesn't get a clean bill of health but certainly dodged the bullet and wasn't indicted, that the likelihood of that happening is less than it was.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, David, that there's less chance now that there will be this big change?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, yes, because if Rove had been indicted, he would be out and there would be forced change.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

DAVID BROOKS: And now I agree with Mark about that. It does seem a lot less likely, though I do you know, when I talk about them surviving this day. I don't mean to say they should be banging the bongo drums and lighting up the cigars. They merely survived. They have still got a long way to go to climb back to where they were.

JIM LEHRER: Do either of you have any inside word that you'd like to share -- and I won't it will anybody if you do -- about whether the president's made a decision about who he is going to replace as the nominee for Harriet Miers?

MARK SHIELDS: I do but I was sworn to secrecy -- no, I don't.

JIM LEHRER: You heard anything today, David?

DAVID BROOKS: No. I think one has heard the arguments, and the president said today he is very close. And so I suspect it will be somebody we've all heard of; he won't be taking any more big, risky chances.

But I haven't heard he hasn't whispered the name to me, though, if he wants to call, he's got my number.

JIM LEHRER: But, of course my follow-up to that is if he does something like that, like Monday, Tuesday, or whatever, is the dark cloud beginning to be removed from the top of the White House, do you think, taking this event today, Harriet Miers yesterday, and then stepping up to the plate and doing something Monday, Tuesday, on the Harriet Miers issue, what do you think?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I'd say look at two scenarios: One, Harriet Miers goes through, and had the hearings, and she performed poorly, and add to that, you get four or five indictments, that's the end of the administration. So that's one scenario. The other scenario is that she withdraws and the president gets a chance to name someone who will probably do a little better in the hearings, and you only get one indictment.

That's the reality scenario, and that's just a much better scenario for the administration than one what we were looking at about a week ago.

JIM LEHRER: How do you see the cloud issue?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, these are rough seas politically. I mean, if he comes up with a 10-strike, John Roberts' long-lost identical twin, it's not going to save -- I mean, look it, we just passed 2,000 killed in Iraq this week, 90 percent killed of them have been killed since the president announced mission accomplished.

We saw a $10 billion profit for Exxon-Mobil yesterday, quarterly profit, a new record. People are paying for it at the gas pumps. People are paying more. We have got consumer confidence down; house prices down or house values down, and at the same time, we've got health costs up, and so I mean I don't know where in the president's own numbers, the one loyal constituency who stuck with him are his conservatives.

I mean, moderates and independents have deserted this president. So he's got very serious problems on every possible front.

JIM LEHRER: What's your overview -- go ahead, David.

DAVID BROOKS: To mention one thing about the conservatives, to me my main worry is conservatives are over reading their victory when it comes to Harriet Miers.

Listen, there was a Gallup Poll that came out today, the reason why she was not favored by the majority of the American people was competence. It was not ideology. But a lot of conservative groups are reading this as a lesson, now Bush really has to pick someone extremely conservative to please us because we really run this show.

And to me, the president's bind now is that a lot of conservative groups, including responsible conservative groups, not just the wing nuts, have over read what just happened and so that to me is a potential pitfall for the Republicans.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, we'll leave it there. Good to see you both, thank you both.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the other news of this day: the U.S. military announced three more American soldiers, and two U.S. Marines were killed in Iraq on Thursday. That made 78 American deaths in October, about 30 more than September. The total since the war began now stands at 2,010.

Thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran today. They shouted support for their president's demand that Israel be wiped off the map. We have a report narrated by Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: The scene on the streets of Teheran, today, as hard-line supporters of the president celebrated Jerusalem Day: It was "Death to Israel," "Death to America" --some would say business as usual. But the sentiments have all the more impact now, courtesy of the man at the center of the storm, President Ahmadinejad, joining the massive anti-Israeli rally, who was anything but repentant when an Iranian reporter asked about the machinations of the West and Zionist regime.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, Iran (Translated): It's nothing new. They think they are the outright power, the world's rulers. Any voice calling out for fairness and freedom which rears its head anywhere in the world is a threat to them. It is nothing new.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: But if there was a recognition within the Iranian government that the president had gone too far, it came from outside the country, in Moscow, the embassy there issuing a statement saying:

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in sharp terms and enter into a conflict.'

Even so, it was said-- and it was said by Iran's president-- prompting the U.N. secretary general to take the unusual of step issuing a statement expressing his dismay.

At Friday prayers there was a hint of moderation, the influential former president, Rafsanjani, spoke of solving issues through the negotiations. The question is, will those words carry so well.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. House today condemned the Iranian president's statements, and the Vatican called the comments "unacceptable."

The U.N. warned today it will have to halt relief flights to earthquake survivors in Pakistan. A World Food program official said there's only enough money to keep helicopters flying for one more week. This week, donor nations pledged $580 million, but so far little of that money has arrived.

Bit by bit, conditions in south Florida improved today in the wake of Hurricane Wilma. A steady stream of military cargo planes brought in food and water to hard-hit areas, and more businesses were able to reopen after getting power. More than 3.5 million people still had no electricity.

The U.S. economy grew briskly in the third quarter of this year, despite hurricane damage. The Commerce Department reported that today. It said the Gross Domestic Product expanded at an annual rate of 3.8 percent from July through September. The news lifted Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 172 points to close above 10,402. The NASDAQ rose 26 points to close above 2089. For the week, the Dow gained nearly 2 percent. The NASDAQ rose 0.4 percent.

Congress agreed today to have Rosa Parks lie in honor at the U.S. Capitol Building, on Sunday and Monday. The civil rights pioneer will be the first woman accorded that tribute. Parks ignited the civil rights movement in 1955, when she refused to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama. She died Monday in Detroit at the age of 92.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major story of this day: The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted by the CIA leaks grand jury. He was charged with lying to F.B.I. agents, committing perjury before the grand jury, and obstruction of justice. President Bush said he was saddened by the news.

Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening, with, among other things, the final installment of our 30th anniversary series. It's the story of a Nebraska town's belief in military service. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.