Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Heh. Whistleblower. That's almost funny. Prejudge the facts. Now that really is funny.

Let me just remind you (and Mrs. Toensing, the armchair grand jurist) that it was the CIA who referred the case to the DOJ. That sort of thing doesn't happen unless they think its fairly important.

No worries. I'm happy enough that the people struggling to make your argument are truly terrified about what "waiting until all the facts are in" really means---Chickens coming home to roost, and such.

Good day to you, sir.

Well that was a rude comment that didn't even have a valid argument to go with it.

Jeff I think you may misinterpret the facts of the case just a little, possibly because of the timeline. Also, the argument you quote is, well, looney tunes. Please note, I am no big defender of Wilson. There are problems with his story which I'll get to, but first there are some things to clear up.

First, Wilson wasn't trying to damage Bush in an election year - his op-ed was written before the presidential campaign even started in earnest. He was trying to damage the case for war in Iraq. He is and has been very open about this. He is of the "realist" camp in foreign policy circles and believes that any action the US takes should be considered in context of how it directly relates to our national security and interests, In his view Iraq did not represent a threat to either. When part of the case for the war in Iraq hinged on something he knew something about he claims he felt obligated to share that. It was only after the administration "went after his wife" did he decide to work with the Democratic Party.

Second, he was not sent to Africa by his wife. The CIA did in fact want certain claims investigated, and his wife did suggest his name, but she didn't send him. There's a distinction there which I think anyone could make.

Now the argument that he "should have known better" is what's looney tunes, despite whatever's being said by the authors of the law. Consider: If I walk through a bad neighborhood at night with $100 dollar bills hanging out of my pockets and I get mugged and possibly killed, it doesn't matter that I was being an idiot, it's still illegal to mug and kill me. There isn't a clause in the law that says "if your husband is a moron then it's ok for people to out you."

Now to Wilson. One thing that irks me about his story is that he said he wrote his op-ed in response to the State of The Union 2003 where bush said that "The British have learned that Saddam Hussein has attempted to buy significan quantities of Uranium from Africa." How could Wilson have known that had anything to do with his Niger trip?

By the way, what could you possibly mean by the "White House is just enjoying the show too much to make it stop"? At this point there isn't any way for the White House to make it stop unless they could somehow kill Patrick Fitzgerald. And if there was a legal and sensible way for them to "make it stop" and they'd chose to keep the circus going for sheer enjoyment, then there's something seriously wrong with their approach to government.

As far as I’m concerned, everyone is a loser with this case. I have no real concern for Karl Rove being vindicated or Joe Wilson being vilified. What I was trying to draw attention to was the lunacy of this “controversy” altogether. Valerie Plame is not currently nor ever been during this “outing” in danger. It is ridiculous to think about this being some violation of national security because of the very nature of the argument.

The point about the “should have known better” is not what absolves Karl Rove or any reporter of blame. It proves that VP was not a covert operative. If she was, it is highly unlikely that she would have a relationship with such a high profile person, that in having that relationship she wouldn’t seek to have him involved in something that would call into question his credibility and why he was involved. Finally, she probably would have had a big issue with him writing that piece that he did. Everything here suggests that she was not interested in or needing to keep a low profile, which completely invalidates there being a case here at all.

To me this whole post was somewhat of a joke and that final statement about making it stop was included. I’m not suggesting the WH would or could manipulate this case into going away. Just that the seeming non-issue of it all is being made into such a big deal. Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Again, it doesn't matter in terms of the law if she has ever been in danger. Keep trying to caveat the law however you want, but those aren't the caveats of the law. The law dosen't say anything about wether or not she was or is in danger. The questions in terms of the law are 1) does she meet the criteria of "under cover" that the law requires 2) did whoever revealed her status do so knowing she had that status. It's quite clearly NOT a non-issue or there wouldn't be a special prosecutor.

As for what this or that action pn the part of either of the Wilsons suggests - you do not and can not know any of that because you have not seen the evidence. It may or may not suggest anything, but until the investigation is complete you won't know, and neither will I, and neither will Rush Limbaugh or whoever you got that ridiculous spin point from. To pretend it's a "non-issue" based on pure speculation with no evidence is, in fact, a joke.

I will agree, however, that it's also silly for people to be going crazy over it. I thought the same thing about Whitewater. Our "scandal driven" culture is shameful. If we had any actual news organizations they would report the evidence or lack thereof and that would be the end of it.

I haven’t qualified the law one way or another. But since you bring up the two requirements or questions, as it appears now the answer to both of them is a resounding NO. Since there seems to be such little evidence, then it would also seem that this is a non-issue until such a time when actual evidence and reporting has been done. The problem most liberals have on this is that they have already settled the case and Karl Rove is guilty of treason. And that is the joke to me.

Advancing the notion that I got my talking points from conservative talk radio, while also implying that the law has in fact been broken despite your admitted lack of evidence does very little to advance civil discourse or your own creditability of original thought.

Jeff, I haven't suggested one way or the other if there's been a crime because I don't know because we haven't seen the evidence. I have never implied that a crime has been comitted. What I have stated, rather directly, is that there is in fact a controversy worthy of investigation. SOMEONE at the CIA thought the law had been broken and asked for an investigation. The Attorney General took it seriously enough that he recused himself and got an independent council. Clearly this is not "a joke" or "loony toons" or a "non-issue". That's all I've said. I think, more or less, I've avoided the subject on my own blog as well, for the same reasons. (There is a post directly about it which wasn't written by me, and the one post I did write was actually a criticism of senate Democrats!)

I won't lie and deny that I hope this turns out to be a real scandal. But unlike most people - on the left and the right - I'm totally unwilling to pretend that at this point in time my wishes are anything other than wishes.

You have in fact qualified the law, twice. You said that Wilson should have known better than to write what he did(or at least you quoted approvingly someone who said that). Then you said that Plame was never in danger. You used these arguments to claim that no law has been broken. Neither of these "facts" bare any relationship to the law as it stands. It's quite possible for it to be true that Joe Wilson is both a self-aggrandizing jerk and a congenital liar AND that someone illegally leaked his wife's covert status to the media. The first is certainly discernable from the public record. The second most certainly isn't.

As for the two questions, I would not claim to know the answer one way or the other. The supposed proof you offer, though, is in fact totally idle speculation not backed up by any facts of the case. And the reason I ribbed you about it coming from conservative punditry is because it does! If you came up with it on your own, then color me disappointed. You normally don't use idle speculation in favor of evidence.

Fair enough. You have your view and set of presuppositions and I have mine. It is clear that regardless of evidence our presuppositions lead us to lean one way or another on this. I neither have currently nor ever had a desire to debate the number of details speculative or evidential surrounding this case. Simply to say that it has been pure entertainment watching those on the left label traitors.

What I do see as being clear is the desire to hang an albatross around the President and his administration’s neck. This is based on a set of presuppositions that says anything this President touches is corrupt. Perhaps if the left wasn’t always so quick to judge and criticize this administration, then this wouldn’t seem like a made up scandal. The facts would be revealed and the law would do its job. Unfortunately we know that isn’t the case.