Poll: Americans oppose Libby pardon by more than three to one.

Today’s Must Read: parsing Karl Rove’s involvement in the purge.

We’re sitting here listening to the Plame testimony in the House. And the exchange has just come to focus on the 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Iraq intel report. If you’ve been a longtime reader of this site, you know that the Niger story was one I reported on extensively for almost two years. The fallout from the story has now spilled out in many directions, not least of which was the recent Libby conviction. But I do hope we can finally have review and scrutiny of that report. The section of the report dealing with Niger, Wilson and Plame is simply a tissue of lies. It’s a shame on the Democrats who served on the committee who got gamed into approving it.

You can read through our archives for detailed discussions of the report’s contents. But it is a deliberate construction of half-truths, flat out lies and intentional misdirection — all quite conscious on the part of the authors — meant to discredit Wilson and thus protect the president. Then-Chairman Roberts (R-KS) prostituted his office by working in concert with the White House to obstruct and misdirect the investigation he was supposedly in charge of leading. And of course the conclusions of the report have become socially acceptable lies repeated endlessly by virtually every Republican in Washington and every conservative editorialist, most recently David Brooks in the Times, but certainly by many others.

To give the matter some current currency, the US Attorney Purge story gives a reminder, if any were needed, of how routinely senior members of the current administration lie to the public and Congress. And it is an example of how much more we can learn when we have a Congress sitting in Washington willing to do some oversight.

With the Libby verdict, many, even those sympathetic to the truth, view this matter as essentially concluded. But a cloud of official lies still hangs over the city. It centers on the Niger-Wilson story but grows out from there to cover everything that happened in the lead up to the war. To date, there has been no serious effort to investigate what happened. Again, there’s been no serious effort to investigate what happened in the lead up to the war. Each investigation has been aimed — to differing degrees — at covering up and diverting blame. A strong statement, but a fact that needs to be said.

Is that your final answer?

Disgraced Attorney General Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson looks over the shoulder of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6th, 2006.

Andrew Sullivan raises a very good question about the White House’s likely need to find a new Attorney General. A logical person to replace Gonzales might be Deputy AG McNulty. But he’s as implicated as his boss. So he’s out. So is Bush loyalist Harriet Miers. So she’s out too. In fact, most of the Bush insiders who are legal types are implicated. And even setting aside particular people, the senate would probably look very askance on another Bush pal as AG.

The political logic of the situation (ethical logic too, but we’re far past that point, aren’t we?) strongly suggests that the White House should tap a broadly respected lawyer public figure who can reestablish trust in the Department.

But can the president afford to have someone like that at the Justice Department right now? With all the investigations and potential investigations in play? A straight-shooter who will have justice’s back rather than the White House?

This might be the only factor weighing in favor of Gonzales holding on to his job.

Some quick updates on a couple of 2008 races that are attracting the attention of national Dems right now.

Dem strategists are certain that Oregon GOP Senator Gordon Smith is more vulnerable than he looks, but they’re struggling to find the right Dem to challenge him.

Meanwhile, on the House side, Dems are planning to make the seat of Florida GOPer C.W. Bill Young one of 2008’s top targets.

Confirmed: Bill Clinton slams New York Times for unfairly covering wife and going soft on Obama.

Update: Obama responds to Bill’s remarks.

Late update: Times declines comment on Bill’s criticism.

Ahhh … the artful ways things are described. Just out from Dan Eggen at the Post …

The White House retreated today from its claim that former counsel Harriet E. Miers first came up with the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, another apparent shift in the Bush administration’s evolving version of events behind the controversy.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that it was no longer clear who first initiated the idea of dismissing a large number of the 93 federal prosecutors following the 2004 elections.

“It has been described as her idea but . . . I don’t want to try to vouch for origination,” Snow said, referring to Miers. “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”

Hazy memories. I’ll bet.

At this point in the game, isn’t the technical description for the status of this kind of false statement ‘no longer operative.’ Someone get Tony to brush up on his Watergate lexicon. Gonna be a bumpy ride.

Here’s a transcript of Tony Snow getting all hazy about the details of the idea to fire the U.S. attorneys.

Also, see him try to spin away the mention of 80-85 percent of U.S. attorneys as “loyal Bushies.”

We hear there’s another big document dump coming late this afternoon.

We’re also hearing the press briefing today was a doozy.

Late Update: Yep, turned out to be true. It was a doozy.