Jacob Weisberg joins the ensemble of wankers who believe the Fitzgerald grand jury is pointless. He takes his place beside veteran wankers Richard Cohen and John Tierney, of whom it can be said that putting his New York Times column behind a subscription wall is no loss. All three gentlemen argue that there’s no evidence anyone in the Bush Administration actually broke the law, ignoring the fact that no one other than the unleakable Patrick Fitzgerald and his secret grand jury have seen the evidence. But Weisberg also makes the remarkable argument that

Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald’s investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they’ll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press’s right to find out, the government’s ability to disclose, and the public’s right to know.

I’ll pause and let you read that a few more times, so you can savor the full-blown, breathtaking idiocy behind that statement.

The press’s right to find out suggests an apology for Judy Miller and the New York Times. Find out what, pray tell? Even Judy’s editors were in the dark about what she was up to, but it’s clear that she was less interested in “finding out” than in protecting her own turf. Judy was not working to uncover possible misdeeds by government, but was a player in those misdeeds. She enabled the White House to lie to the American people. That’s not protected by the First Amendment, dear. (For another look at Judy, see Christopher Dickey’s web exclusive at Newsweek.)

The government’s ability to disclose–I can barely guess what Weisberg was referring to there. Careful reading of the remainder of the article leads me to think he was referring to subpoenaing reporters because they were the recipients of government leaks. But it appears the “leaks” were not disclosures, but misinformation intended to smear a critic of the Administration. Weisberg is defending the government’s right to bully and intimidate critics into shutting up, which I don’t think was the intention of the First Amendment.

And, finally, the public’s right to know. Know what? The party line? The propaganda du jour? How about (dare I say it) facts, Mr. Weisberg? How about getting to the bottom of a government conspiracy to manipulate the press and spread disinformation in order to deceive the public into supporting a war? I’d like to know more about that, sir.

Enough of that. Other Traitorgate news–David Johnston and Richard Stevenson of the New York Times write that Patrick Fitzgerald has no plans to issue a final report. This means we’ll either get indictments or nothin’.

Raw Story reports that John Hannah, “a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton,” is “cooperating” with Fitzgerald and may have cut a deal.

The New York Daily News claims that President Bush “rebuked” Karl Rove when Bush found out about the leak, two years ago. Thomas M. DeFrank writes, “Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.” Buzzflash speculates that this is a story that was leaked to insulate Bush from Traitorgate fallout. But if the story is true, that means Bush has been in on the cover-up. Can we say “unindicted co-conspirator”? Stay tuned.

Speaking of Karl–Judy Miller wannabe Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that Rove has cancelled three appearances before conservative groups.

See also yesterday’s Murray Waas report, which takes a closer look at Scooter Libby’s involvement in the mess.

The entire Traitorgate mess, some say, grew out of Dick the Dick’s war with the CIA over WMD intelligence. As part of that war, the White House installed Peter Goss as head of the CIA a year ago. Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post reports that this is not going well.

A year later, Goss is at loggerheads with the clandestine service he sought to embrace. At least a dozen senior officials — several of whom were promoted under Goss — have resigned, retired early or requested reassignment. The directorate’s second-in-command walked out of Langley last month and then told senators in a closed-door hearing that he had lost confidence in Goss’s leadership.

The turmoil has left some employees shaken and has prompted former colleagues in Congress to question how Goss intends to improve the agency’s capabilities and restore morale. The White House is aware of the problems, administration officials said, and believes they are being handled by the director of national intelligence, who now oversees the agency.

But the Senate intelligence committee, which generally took testimony once a year from Goss’s predecessors, has invited him for an unusual closed-door hearing today. Senators, according to their staff, intend to ask the former congressman from Florida to explain why the CIA is bleeding talent at a time of war, and to answer charges that the agency is adrift.

Another amazing Bush Administration appointment. Georgie Boy sure knows how to pick ’em.