The allegation that the phone taps were done under the Bush "warrantless wiretaps" crap are not sustainable, as the affidavit for indictment clearly identifies the courts and judges responsible for issuance of the warrants (including dates and times of issue and of subsequent re-issues and extensions) under which the surveillance was done.

While I fully concur that the Bushisms are repugnant, they do not seem applicable in this case.

A bright light here is that the US Atty filing the charges is the same one who managed to get Libby convicted (not of the crimes but at least of lying about them) prior to the Bush pardon. [And do we all regret that he couldn't get to Cheney?]

John