if this, and the Valerie Plame outing, are such "non-issues," why do they get under elephantman and joe's skin so much. Me thinks they doth protesteth too much.

Or are we seeing the emptiness of the political rhetoric and talking points from the Republicans on every issue these days. From this Prosecutor scandal, to Libby and the Plame outing, the Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East debacle, it's always the same. They shout out these empty talking points that try to shift blame away from Bush and his administration no matter how tenuous the connection. The Republicans have nothing.

"You guys claim to be the smart ones ..."

That's because we understand the issue, and you don't. You are leaving out all of the relevant facts, and highlighting all of the irrelevant ones. (And throwing in some lies for good measure.) Clinton's "purge" was pre-Patriot Act. You mention that this was done while the Dems controlled Congress, yet in the Patriot Act world, Congress, and more specifically the Senate, has no say in the matter anymore. In Clinton's day, he had to replace those fired prosecutors with prosecutors who had to pass Senate approval. Bush's replacements did not have to pass through that firey hoop. Funny how every time we seriously pin Bush to the wall on an issue, you guys immediately cry "bbbbut Clinton..." in the weakest form of defense imaginable.

If what Bush and Gonzales did was so "legal," and above boeard and within their rights, why is Gonzales looking like such a dweeb over this? Obviously he's a bad liar, but if what you say is true, Gonzales and Bush could just say, "We did it because we CAN. Go fuck off now." And that would be the end of it.

who needs Republicans?

You may think it's fine for Bush Administration officials to lie under oath to Congress, but I would like for my representatives to hold their feet to the fire every time they do. It may seem like a distraction to you, but in reality, Democrats in congress have all the time in the world for issues like this. It's their job.

Great post. Just don't expect the Bush supporters to be falling all over themselves to answer any of your questions.

Here's how I like to point out the difference between anger on the right, and anger on the left:

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. A few years ago, they sent me a sticker to put on the window of my car. I chose not to put it on my car, because I'd rather not have some NRA wack-job shoot a hole in my window or take a crow-bar to my hood. Living in Texas, those are very real possibilities. That being said, the NRA wack job, regardless of the obvious contempt I hold for him, doesn't have to worry about me shooting at him, or vandalizing his car.

In summary: Right wing NRA wack-job owns gun and is just looking for an excuse to use it. Card-carrying ACLU member, owns no gun, and wouldn't use it even if he had one. Therein lies the difference.

My point was that the guy in his pick-up with the gun rack and NRA sticker doesn't have to worry about violence being done to him from a lefty. He really has no reasonable worries in that regard. However, it's a lot more reasonable for me to worry about violence being done to me by someone like him. For that reason, hate speech from the right carries a lot more weight, than what passes for "hate speech" from the left. It's apples and oranges.

"I do feel for you living in Texas, I guess Kentucky is more civilized. Maybe you should relocate."

I can always can dream...

Since when is perjury not a crime? Or obstruction of justice? If Libby didn't have a crime to hide, he wouldn't have lied to the grand jury in the first place. You have to be delusional to believe otherwise.

If you had bothered to read Glenn's entire article, you would understand why it's this issue is so important. Had you read it and understood it, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.

Do you REALYY believe everything the Bush Administration says?

"Don't they know what dhimmi means?"

It's painfully obvious that those right wingers aren't real big on details.

No one ever would have connected Wilson's trip to Plame had she never been outed. Since it was a secret that she was an agent, how would it have occurred to anyone in that she was in any way involved? I can't believe such an elementary fact has to be explained again and again and again...

joe happily supports a president who thinks that a person can live inside the belly of a whale, that a male and female of every species of living creature on the earth once lived on a boat with Noah, that humans once lived to be over 900 years old and that Moses magically parted the Red Sea.

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

You "think" that because you are a twit. If Wilson was such a partison hit man, why was Bush #1 so fond of him? No matter who was sent to Niger, they would have come to the same conclusion: The Bush Administrations claims were false.

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

I will personally give you a million dollars if you can adequately explain this non-sensical statement. Plame did not "send" Wilson. She did not have that sort of authority. And even if she did, it could not have possibly affected her covert status.

Joe's use of Maxwell Smart in an analogy tells us where he gets his knowledge regarding covert spies from. In joe's world, there's no difference between fact and fiction.It's all whatever you want it to be.