Duh.

And what does it tell us about those who are desperately trying everything to defend these guys?

Oh, and then there's Arnold. Love that spin there, too.

I tell ya. Party of Moral Clarity is becoming quite the oxymoron.

Considering Bush is now on record as saying "this was a criminal act" and is at least talking tough... I'd say it shows the administration doesn't put up with violations of national security and intelligence assets.

Of course we'll have to see what the final outcome is, but I think it's a little too early to discredit moral clarity.

As to Arnold.. what exactly are you referring to? The makeup artist who lied about him taking a picture of her or the NYTimes and ABC News for erroneously reporting Arnold praised Hitler?

Ha! I laugh at your weak attempts at defense by touting the party line. Get prepared, bucko. Payback's a bitch.

I'll let others argue the Plame affair. I'll just note that Bush popped the hot air balloons that were attempting to provide flack for the whole issue yesterday. Funny, that. Downright humourous. Brings a tear to my eye to see the right scramble for another line of flack.

As to Arnie, prepare for finding out whether a sitting govenor can have civil suits brought against him. And, here's the real kicker:

1) Arnie will be elected with less than 40% of the vote.

2) He'll be facing a never ending stream of scandals.

3) The govenor actually doesn't produce the law, he just signs it.

4) There's a hell of a lot of angry democrats.

5) If you think the republican minority can cause a lot of trouble, just imagine what the majority can do.

Scandal city, impotent govenor. National coverage.

Oh yes, you republicans are MASTER politicians...

<giggle>

Master politicians.

JohnC:

In re: "Duh"--my point, which granted wasn't artfully delivered (RealLife and all that...) is that to listen to the Senate Democrats calling for a special are acting as if their sole motivation is their abiding sense of injustice over what was done to Plame. However, the Kurtz quote comes closer to describing their motivations. Hardly a startling statement, but that was my point.

And,by the way, I haven't defended the leaker, ever.

Actually, I'm just yanking your chain... I'm not in the boat with JG on that subject. I just like to taunt every once and a while.

:)

Chain yanking be fine ;)

I
m on the air right now, so I can't fully comment.. I just wanted to say less than 40% eh?

If the query about what the Wilson/Plame affair indicates with regard to the character of the Bush Administration is serious (vice merely rhetorical, which--as you point out--is more likely the case), the answer at this point is "We don't know". It says absolutely nothing about the Administration unless the leak was undertaken at the behest (or at least acquiescence) of the top members of the Administration--if it was not a matter of policy, then the whole affair says something only about those who leaked the info.

There are as many translators as there are humans.