I'm thinking Joe's a ringer. His comments are too easily refutable to be coming from a real thinking human being. For example:

I think her and her husband had their own ploitical motivations and she thought she could hide behind her "covert" status.

Stop right there. You ran into a problem in the first two words. Despite what you "think", neither Plame's nor Wilson's political motivations had anything to do with Wilson going to Niger. Why? Because Plame had no such authority to send him. That's uncontested everywhere apart from Rush's show.

Once again, it's hard to be covert when you're sending your husband on the mission.

By saying "once again," you remind us all that this point you're wheeling out, that Plame sent her husband on a mission, has already been soundly refuted. Which is it, Joe? Are you unable to read, or do you just lack reasoning faculties?

Even Maxwell Smart would have known that.

Oh, I see. Too much TV on the brain. It's okay. Go sit down, Judge Judy is on in a half hour.

Oh, and Fitzgerald couldn't make the case in court.

Yes, but only because Libby lied in order to obstruct the investigation. For that reason, Fitzgerald was prevented from going further in the case. That's the single branch you're hanging your defense on, Joe: a lie that has been declared such by a jury.

all conspiracy theorists here regarding the Bush admin think it's a completely reasonable coincidence that Plames husband went on this mission.

I don't even see it as a startling coincidence. A US ambassador is married to a covert CIA agent? That doesn't sound too crazy. This ambassador is sent to a foreign country on a mission. Seems pretty reasonable. That ambassador returns with intel and reports it, the report going up the administration to Cheney's office, which requested the information in the first place. Next, this ambassador sees the president go on TV in his State of the Union address and state the exact opposite of what his intel said. So he refutes it. I'm not sure what significance Plame was meant to have played in all this. Joe, would you care to explain?

And based on the track record of the CIA the past decade I think comparing them to Get Smart is appropriate.

Keep in mind, Joe, that many CIA analysts knew that the WMD story was bunk, but were prevented from highlighting this analysis by Cheney's Office of Special Plans. In other words, these Maxwell Smart type characters were right, and the administration was wrong. So, please explain to me why this means the CIA is inept and the administration is competent.

Honestly I don't care about the whole situation at this point. No crime was committed and there are far more important things going on in the world.

I don't blame you! Your point has been so thoroughly trounced, it's no wonder you take the "I don't care about this anyway" stance. That used to work great for me back in the 4th grade. Fact is, you cared about it to post about it, but now that your posts have made you look like a fool, you're in the process of backpedaling.

In this way, you're perfectly representative of the administration you defend. You must be proud.

I want to know exactly how much dope is being smoked in the White House. Because nothing else could account for the degree of memory loss that occurs there. My own memory is admittedly not the best, but I can certainly remember details of my involvement in things that were important to me over the years. The "I don't recall" defense is really getting insulting. Either admit that you do in fact remember, or just legalize pot once and for all. One or the other!

Nothing came of it. Nothing's going to come from the dems circle jerk either. So now I'm bored with it.

So then explain why you're expending so much energy today posting about a topic you're bored with?

(Joe, this might be a good time to stop posting and assume the fetal position under your bed.)

anyone who posts in Salon and doesn't agree with the party line or the spin is always told that they are inept in some way. Doesn't mean it's true but it makes you all feel better so I'm ok with it.

Possibly. However, in your case today, it obviously is true. You are inept. That's not my opinion, but the proven fact. You have repeatedly based your whole view of this matter of a claim that is demonstrably untrue, that Plame sent Wilson to Niger. That's inept. This isn't just name-calling (like paulpst was). This is logical discourse. Try it.

I don't even completely disagree with your statements about the issue, I just have the same cynicism about her and her husband that you do about Bush and his admin.

Sorry, it's not the same cynicism. My cynicism about BushCo are based on the many times they have made statements that were later proven to be lies. Many, many, many times, and particularly about this issue. That's why Libby was on trial, remember?

On the other hand, you have no proven examples of Plame or Wilson lying.

See the difference? My cynicism is based on observable facts. Yours exists in defiance of those same facts.

I think a year from now you'll still be claiming Plame was shafted and there will still be no conviction for any alleged crime against her.

This is probably true. A year from now, Libby will have wound out his appeal and will be in minimum security for 10 months until Bush pardons him on Jan 20, 2009. Therefore, the investigation will still be effectively hamstrung, such that you and I will never really know the full story.

Man, you really support a stand-up group of people, Joe.