Ashcroft yields.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision last week to disqualify himself from involvement in an investigation into whether Bush administration officials leaked the name of a CIA operative to a newspaper columnist is encouraging - and puzzling.

It is encouraging that Ashcroft has acknowledged that the supervision of this investigation by the president's relentlessly loyal attorney general undermined its credibility. Ashcroft turned the criminal investigation over to his chief deputy, James Comey, who then turned it over to Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago.

Now it falls to Fitzgerald, a highly regarded veteran prosecutor, to figure out who leaked information that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. It was Wilson who, at the administration's request, investigated - and cast doubt upon - the alleged Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger. After Wilson went public with his criticism of the Iraq-Niger link, someone leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist, and a half dozen other journalists. Disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative is a felony - deservedly so, given that both lives and national security can be on the line.

The Justice Department should never have undertaken the investigation in the first place. Ashcroft has strong ties to the White House and other agencies that might have leaked Plame's identity. From the outset, this probe should have been handled by an outside special prosecutor who would have been far better equipped to wage an aggressive, nonpartisan investigation.

That's where the puzzlement about Ashcroft's move enters the picture. Why did the attorney general wait two months before stepping aside? Did it take that long for the possibility of a conflict of interest to penetrate his notoriously stubborn and political hide, or was he responding to growing criticism of the investigation - criticism that some have speculated could hurt Bush in his re-election effort? Or did Ashcroft, as some Democrats have alleged, react to developments that had brought investigators sniffing at the heels of key White House officials with whom Ashcroft has long-standing connections?

While many, including this newspaper, have argued from the outset that this investigation should not be handled by Justice Department appointees, the selection of Fitzgerald is nonetheless heartening. During his tenure in Chicago, he has earned a reputation as a fiercely independent prosecutor. While he serves as a political appointee, he does not appear likely to be swayed by political considerations. Moreover, Comey has vowed to give Fitzgerald full authority to conduct the probe, to issue subpoenas and to grant immunity without approval - or interference - from above.

Americans deserve to know the truth about who, if anyone, in the White House made public the identity of a CIA operative. While it would have been far better to have an outside special prosecutor conduct the investigation, that now appears to be out of the question. Given that reality, the appointment of Fitzgerald is, as one Democratic congressman observed last week, a glass that is "three-quarters full."

Better yet, it's a glass that John Ashcroft is no longer holding.