This Bush leak is really heating up around the United States and the World. Google news has reported 1,789 articles on the subject so far today. Here are some of the more creative "leak" headlines out there:

Bush’s Words too Slippery to Clog Leaks, Chicago Tribune
War of Leaks, Lies, and Legalities, Seattle Times
Leaker in Cheif, Newsweek
Truth and Leaks, Detroit Free Press
Spin Cycle Springs a Leak, LA Times
First a Leak, Now a Jam, NY Times
Farewell, Figleaf, MSN.com (not a play on leak, but a good one)
Bush under Pressure on Leak Row, BBC News
President Springs Leak in Support, Hartford Courant
Master Leaker, Rutland Herald, Vermont
Plumber or Leaker?  The Whitehouse Knows, The Virginian Pilot
Bush’s Leak-Hating Reputation takes Hit, Gwinnit Daily Post, GA
Leak Odor Wafts Towards Bush, Presna Latina, Cuba
DUBYA Can’t Leak, New York Post OP Ed
Leak-hating president as Leaker-in-Cheif, Boston Globe

And as the piece de restance, we have this from our buddies across the pond at TheSpoof.com:

Grand Jury Transcripts have been released that state Scooter Libby testified in March of 2004 that President Bush was the one who told him to leak Plames name in July of 2003. Given that, a lot of the past timeline that never made any sense starts to fall in place. The incredible boldfaced lies of this evil administration are becoming terrifying. Let’s review:

July 03 – Valerie Plame is outed in press as an undercover operative.

September 03 – Bush stands up in front of the American people and lies his ass off when he makes the false promise that anyone involved in the leak will be fired. What he was really saying was that anyone who leaks the truth about how this evil administration deliberately leaked her name in order to go forward with a selfish war would be fired.

March 04 – Scooter testified. The Bush finds out that he has told the Grand Jury that President Bush directed him to leak Plame’s name.

June 04 – Bush meets with a private lawyer. Bush knows he was named and is going to try to cover his ass. Everyone at the time is baffled as to why he is doing this, but alas, we won’t know this until April 06.

July 05- After Bush conspires with his lawyer, they decide since he was the one who told Scooter to leak Plame’s name, then no law was broken. After all, the President is above the law. Bush then changes his original statement from “anyone involved will be fired” to “anyone breaking the law will be fired”. The press notices, but again since the truth was hidden, nobody really knew why he was doing this.

October 05- Rove testifies to the Grand Jury. Rove already knows what Scooter has said to them. Rove “leaks” to the press that he has testified that Scooter was the original source. Also this month Scooter is indicted for lying during the investigation.

April 06 – Grand Jury Papers are filed in court and become public record. It is found out that President Bush has been lying to the American People and the World for the last 3 years.

Former Republican Congressman, Duke Cunningham,  pleaded guilty last Nov. 28 to conspiracy, evading more than $1 million in taxes, and taking up to $2.4 million in bribes.  Today he was sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in Federal Prison (this ain’t no country club, boys).  Cunningham has held office in Congress in the affluent Rancho Santa Fe district, located in the San Diego burbs, since 1990.

Prosecutors recommended a 10-year prison sentence for the Dukester saying he "bullied" Pentagon officials to award contracts to defense contractors who bribed him. He extorted millions of dollars from contractors for his vote in Congress.

Prosecutors did not recommend the maximum 20-year sentence because Cunningham is cooperating in an investigation that has identified 4 co-conspirators not yet identified.  More corruption is to come.

Cunningham’s attorneys argued 10 years was unreasonable since no member of Congress has ever received a sentence as long as six years, however the judge has sense enough to make the punishment fit the crime.

A yacht, the mansion deal, a Rolls Royce, and other items were brought in court as evidence against him.  Cunning even had the balls to concoct a “bribe menu” scribbled on a note card detailing how much money would get what.  Guess he didn’t guard his napkins as closely as he should have.

The NY Times reported the Dukster said, "I made a very wrong turn," as he faced Federal District Judge Larry Alan Burns.  Even bleeding-heart liberals can’t squeeze out a drop for this thief. 

Bob Woodward, reporter of Watergate fame, has had a lapse in judgment. Last month he appeared on Comedy Central to sell his new book.  During that interview with John Stuart, he stated he felt Judith Miller was unjustly imprisoned.  He has also been criticized for speaking out against Fitzgerald and the entire investigation, as well as offering to serve some of Miller’s time in jail.  He stated he would be “honored” to serve some of her time for her.

Why do you think that is?

Turns out Woodward himself was one of the first journalists used by the administration to out Valerie Plame.  Woodward confessed on the Larry King show this week that he, too, was offered Valerie Plame’s name.  He also specified it was no Scooter Libby that offered it up, but stopped short in naming the informant.

Since this information has come to light this week, and implied that Woodward was keeping silent for so long, his own employer, the Washington Post, has rebuked him for withholding information. Deborah Howell, Washington Post ombudsman, said Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

Wickipedia has an good time line for the Palme affair here.  Educate yourself.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday appointed his counsel, David Addington, as chief of staff to replace Lewis Libby, who was indicted in the CIA leak investigation, the vice president’s office said.

Now the American people can pay for Cheney’s defense. No attemp to hide anything here. Next time Cheney is caught, he can claim client privledge. I hope Fitzgerald is not done, and that Scooter rolls on all of them.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you have heard that Texas Republican Congress Majority leader, Tom DeLay, was indicted by a grand jury today on the felony charge of conspiring to violate political fundraising laws.

DeLay’s Texas committee would solicit donations from big corporate donors. Since it is illegal in Texas to take large donations from corporations, DeLay and his buddies gave the money to the Republican Party in Washington where it was legal to accept such donations. The Republican Party in Washington, under TRMPAC, then gave the money back to DeLay’s campaign, hence laundering the money.

A lot of other Republicans received the dirty money as well. JD Hayworth of Arizona, to name one deserving gas bag, received thousands from the illegal PAC..

Even after being caught with his greedy hand in the cookie jar, DeLay insists he has done nothing wrong and accuses the Democratic prosecutor of being a “partisan fanatic”. DeLay whined, “This is one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history. It’s a sham.”

After the way the Republicans have hog-tied the Democrats in the government, DeLay must be an idiot to think anyone would believe the Democrats were somehow this strong arm keeping him down. Prison would be good for DeLay. A good two years would give him time to lift weights and convert to Islam.

Press Secretary, Scott McClellan got fried in the press conference on July 18 about Rove. The President is not keeping his word and the reporters are waking up.

Part is below, read it all here.
—————————
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for — in the leak of a CIA officer’s name, in which he said that he would — if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That’s never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they’re not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it’s important for us to learn all the facts. We don’t know all the facts, and it’s important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.

The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that’s what we’ve been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that’s the way we’ve been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President’s direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the — so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn’t say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know —

Q But we haven’t talked about a crime.

MR. McCLELLAN: — well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that’s something you may be trying to do here.

Q Does the President equate the word “leaking” to a crime, as best you know, in his mind? Just the use of the word “leaking,” does he see that as a criminal standard? And is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we all serve at the pleasure of the President in this White House. The President — you heard what he had to say on the matter. He was asked a specific question, and you heard his response.

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll leave it at what the President said.

Go ahead.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can’t call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he’s got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn’t know all the facts. I don’t know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because —

Q Why doesn’t he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll tell you why, because there’s an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it’s important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we’ll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn’t be getting into —

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn’t be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, we don’t know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent’s identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don’t know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Q But on the specifics — on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that’s exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it’s important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.

The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those — are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Given the new formulation “if somebody committed a crime,” would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I’m not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don’t know that there’s really much more to add at this point.

Q But the importance is the question of would — if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That’s what we’ve been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, going back to the President’s statements from earlier — if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration — it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we’re not going to do that.

Q But if someone — if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn’t there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s a criminal investigation. We don’t know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government —

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I’ve already answered it.

Q No, you didn’t.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about — he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it’s only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that’s why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, first of all, I have a great respect for this White House press corps and they’re very nice and kind to me.

MR. McCLELLAN: I do, too. (Laughter.) They’re doing their job.

Q What I’m — my question — comment, also, about when the leaders visit the White House, and they have press availability in the East Room, not only the India today, but any Prime Minister or President. I feel it’s kind of insult to that leader, he’s standing there, only two questions, but only his own people are asking about his visit or his nation, but other questions are always on different topics. I feel, personally, it’s insult to that leader and —

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, I didn’t get —

Q — that if it’s the Indian leader visiting here, that press availability should be only on India.

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, okay. I think you’re opinion is noted. Go ahead.

Let me keep going to Carl.

January, 2001: There were two separate burglaries at the Niger Embassy in Rome within a span of 30 days. La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, reported that the embassy’s documents and files had been “put in disarray” and that “a watch of modest value and two women’s rings” were missing. As the investigation unfolds over the next 2 years, Italian investigators will theorize that the thieves who broke into the Niger Embassy had come looking for letterhead stationary and official seals that could be used to create bogus documents stating Iraq purchased yellowcake from Niger.

October 2001: A few months after the break-in, the Italian intelligence service (SISME) obtains documents that indicate Niger has sold Iraq uranium yellowcake. The documents are obvious forgeries. One of the documents is a formal agreement between Iraq and Niger that states Niger is to furnish uranium yellowcake to Iraq. The letter, dated October 10, 2000, was allegedly sent to the Niger embassy in Rome, but was received in Rome on September 28, 2000. Tip one the letter is fake. The letter is signed by the Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ailele Elhadj Habibou, who had not been minister since 1989 (Hint number 2 the letter is fake). La Rebublicca reported there were a total of six letters in this package.

SISME shares the documents with the CIA. The CIA briefs Vice President Dick Cheney on intelligence that was provided by the Italians suggesting that Iraq is attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Cheney asks about the implications of the report and is reportedly dissatisfied with the initial response (probably that they are forgeries). Cheney asks the CIA to take another look.

February 2002: Wilson is asked and accepts the mission to Niger to investigate the papers. Wilson travels to Niger with other Niger officials to learn the truth. Wilson finds no evidence of uranium purchase.

March 2002: Wilson reports to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” the uranium transfer deal from Niger to Iraq took place.

October 2002: The CIA sends a four-page memo to Bush administration officials, including Stephen Hadley - Bush’s deputy national security adviser, Micheal Gerson - chief speechwriter, and Condasleeza Rice expressing doubt over claims that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger.

January 23, 2003: Bush in his State of the Union Address utters the now infamous 16 Words, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”

July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson writes New York Times Op-Ed criticizing Bush’s remarks on Iraq yellowcake purchase in Niger as relying on forged documents. He states the CIA provided this intelligence to the White House prior to the State of the Union Address in January.

July 8, 2003: A friend informs Wilson that Robert Novak believes that his wife had something to do with Wilson’s appointment to investigate the Yellowcake claim in Africa.

July 8, 2003: Robert Novak called Karl Rove and discusses the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name. The confidential source this is from says that Rove does not remember whether he told Novak, or Novak told him of Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative.

July 10, 2003: Novak contacts Wilson in an attempt to verify the information Rove has given him that his wife is a CIA operative. Wilson did not respond.

July 11, 2003 Novak’s article outing Valarie Plame as a CIA operative is sent out on the AP wire.

July 14, 2003: Novak outs Plaume to the general public in print via the Chigago Tribune.

July 21, 2003: Chris Matthews informs Wilson that Karl Rove considered his wife “fair game”.

July 22, 2003: Newsday reports that their intelligence sources confirmed that Plame was undercover until Novak outed her quoting Novak as saying: “I didn’t dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it.”

July 24, 2003: The CIA reported “possible violations of criminal law” to the Attorney General John Ashcroft.

July 30, 2003: The CIA files a “crime report” with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), suggesting the leak of Wilson’s wife’s name and covert status might entail criminal acts. After some time, the DOJ finally investigates.

September 29, 2003: On CNN’s Crossfire, Novak explains, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this”.

News Producer, Andrea Owen asked Rove as he walked to his car, “Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?”, Rove replied, “No.” and shut the car door

In a media briefing when asked if Karl Rove was involved, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. … I’ve said that it’s not true. … And I have spoken with Karl Rove.”

October 1, 2003: On the set of Face the Nation Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) expressed “bewilderment” at Republicans who were spinning a possible high crime into a partisan attack. Hagel says, “(The President) has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it”

New Republican talking points try to imply the disclosure was made without knowledge that a covert operative was being exposed and therefore might not have been a crime. IMHO, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

October 3, 2004: The White House gives its staff until 5pm on Tuesday, October 7 to turn over documents, phone logs, etc. relating to the leak. White House counsel estimates that it will take two weeks to review the collection and turn it over to the DOJ

October 4, 2003: Novak contradicts his previous story and confirms that he knows Plame was working under official cover, at the same time outing the front company she and many others used as cover.

October 6, 2003: Newsweek reports that Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” was the journalist who called Mr. Wilson and said, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove who said your wife is fair game.”

October 9, 2003: Senators Daschle, Levin, Biden and Schumer call for appointment of a special counsel, noting missteps of the DOJ and the Attorney General’s conflicts of interest in the matter.

October 15, 2003: The New York Times reports that senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials criticized the Attorney General’s failure to reuse himself or appoint a special counsel because of his “long career with Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president.”

December 30, 2003: Attorney General Ashcroft FINALLY reuses himself from the leak investigation. James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, appoints Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney, as “special” counsel.

January 21, 2004: The federal grand jury begins hearing testimony.

January 22, 2004: Time magazine reports that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has begun presenting evidence to a grand jury and White House staff have been notified that they may be subpoenaed for their information. Sources say that some staff have been asked to meet informally with Fitzgerald to discuss offers of immunity in exchange for their knowledge.

February 10, 2004: It is confirmed that Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, the President’s press secretary and Adam Levine, a former press aide, testify before the grand jury. Several members of the Vice President’s staff have also testified.

In addition to the grand jury proceedings, “prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative.” Finally, Fitzgerald is conducting these interviews in secret, asking the subjects to sign confidentially agreements, and often staff are refusing to do so.

It has been reported that these lawyers also say that the prosecutors have evidence confirming that White House officials were extremely upset with the Wilson article, and with the CIA for sending him to Africa.

June 2, 2004: President Bush meets with outside private attorney James Sharp, to advise him about the investigation. Because Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr removed the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients in his prosecution of Bill Clinton, this is the likely reason Bush sought outside counsel instead of the White House Counsel’s Office.

June 3, 2004: CIA Director George Tenet resigns for “personal reasons”. His resignation announcement was a love fest between Bush and Tennent. We can now guess why.

June 4, 2004: Deputy Director for Operations CIA James Pavitt, in charge of spies according to the BBC News resigns, and says to have made the decision some weeks before.

June 5, 2004: The Washington Post gets confirmation that representatives of special prosecutor Fitzgerald have interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney.

June-July 2004: White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, President Bush, and Colin Powell testify before the federal grand jury investigating the leak.

October 14, 2004: Karl Rove testifies before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s identity by administration sources. Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald questions Rove about his contacts with journalists what is believed to be his third appearance before the grand jury.

February 15, 2005: The Federal appeals court in Washington rules that Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper may have witnessed a federal crime (disclosure by government officials of a CIA officer’s identity), and would have to cooperate with the grand juries investigating the crime. The Court based that decision on 5 pages of grand jury testimony, redacted when released.

June 27, 2004: The courts refuse to hear reporters, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, appeal.

June 30, 2004: Time magazine hands over Cooper notes surrounding the leak case.

July 6, 2004: Around 7:30 in the morning, Matthew Cooper prepares to leave for court, resigned that he may end up in jail for refusing to reveal his source. Later that day Cooper then says to the press that he received the permission in “somewhat dramatic fashion” from his source that he has permission to reveal his identity. This whole scene is base on weasel words and boils down to Rove trying to imply that he is not the one Cooper is protecting.

July 11, 2004: Press briefing with McClellan, he was asked “Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose? “ McClellan sidestepped the questions ad nauseum stating he had no comment on an ongoing investigation (see the Daily Show excellent compilation of this topic).

July 13, 2004: Matthew Cooper testifies for 2.5 hours before the grand jury and confirms that his source on the leak was Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

And I’m sure this is not the end of it. These references were from various news sources from the internet, and From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia…specifically http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline.