Tom Maguire, who accurately predicted that Libby would probably get indicted but that Rove wouldn't, has read through the indictment and has doubts about Libby's sanity. What I wonder is what was Libby's motive for the lying. Was he just trying to evade what he regarded as a political scandal? He is a lawyer and reportedly is extremely bright. He had to know that the prosecutor had subpoenaed his notes and was talking to everyone there at the White House. Didn't he look through those notes at all before he turned them over? Did he totally forget all the conversations that he had had with people about Wilson's wife? Did he think that none of them would testify to the Grand Jury? Did he think that the reporters would hang tough through the whole investigation? I just can't figure out why he would have risked perjuring himself about something that he must have known would be checked. He must have known the old cliche about it not being the crime, but the coverup that comes back to bite you. It just seems so stupid and unnecessary. Telling the truth would have been not only the legal and honorable thing to have done, but also the smart thing. By the time the investigaton began, most of the dirt had already come out; why not tell the truth?

Lying to the a Grand Jury is not insignificant. Conservatives disdained the Clintons for lying to a Grand Jury (remember that Robert Ray found that Hillary had given factually false testimony to the Grand Jury.) Lying is lying and the Republicans should be honorable in not defending perjury or attacking the prosecutor. As National Review says,

Please spare us the excuses warmed over from Democratic talking points in the 1990s: the prosecutor is out-of-control, there was no underlying crime, etc., etc. It is the responsibility of anyone, especially a public official, to tell the truth to FBI agents and grand juries. If Libby didn't, he should face the consequences. Fitzgerald's indictment is not a Ronnie Earle-style partisan production, held together with scotch tape and malicious intentions. But this is the prosecutor's day, when he gets to make the argument against his target unrebutted. Libby will get his chance to respond, and it might be that Fitzgerald's case looks weaker soon.

Of course, remembering that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, perhaps the answer to my questions is that Libby was not stupid and was not lying to the Grand Jury. Maybe he can adopt the "do you really think I'm this stupid?" defense.

John Hinderaker is equally mystified as to why Libby would have lied.

And we still don't know who leaked to Robert Novak or whether or not Plame was classified as a covert agent. Will Novak come clean at some time?

Those liberals who were yearning for "Fitzmas" when Fitzgerald would perhaps frog march Rove out of the White House have got to be disappointed. Fitzgerald's press conference seemed to imply that he most likely wouldn't be bringing more charges. Rove isn't out of the woods, but he has to be breathing a whole easier today than he was earlier.

As a final funny note, I laughed out loud reading this apparent quote from someone at Daily Kos.

btw, i DO love the DKurse posts renaming it Fitzukkah, because (and this is their characterization, not mine) “it’s dragging out too long and the presents really suck”.

As someone who has given and received "sucky" Hannukah presents, I know what that poster meant.

Lorie Byrd has some more thoughts.