"Honestly I don't care about the whole situation at this point. "

Yeah, right, that's why you've been posting insessantly regarding this issue for the past 9 months or so. I'd even wager that you've been posting more about this issue here at Salon than all the other issues combined. But you claim that really "don't care." I love that. If that statement were actually true, you never would have posted about it in the first place.

I also love that you think WE are the conspiracy theorists, yet you are the one placing all these mysetious motivations behind the actions of Plame and Wilson, not to mention making up you own "facts" reagrding the case. Talk about irony...

Your posts today remeind me of the famous Molly Ivins quote: "The first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging."

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

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the logic behind this statement. I realize it's factually incorrect in that she did not send him, but explain to me how the fact that Wilson and Plame are married affects her covert status? Had Libby, Cheney, Rove and Armitage not been so eager to get her name in print, we would never have known she existed. Yet you say it would "be hard" to protect her covert status. How is that so? It makes no sense. I know it makes you feel better to think of it in those terms, but it's just non-sense. Bush Adminstration officials went out of their way to get her name out. That's the only reason why we know who she is.

"What was the justification for Clinton firing the entire USAG corps OTHER than politics?"

What was the justification? Umm, how about tradition? And you may want to check your facts to see of those prosecutors were really fired by Clinton, or if they submittted their own resignations.

"The Current Occupant LIED about the presence of WMD in Iraq. The Current Occupant LIED about a connection between Iraq and bin Laden"

Yet it's not hard to find Bush supporters who will look you straight in the eye and blame it all on "faulty intelligence."

Boy, talk about a "meeting of the minds"!

Their posts are consistently pointless, non-sensical, and lack any factual support for their claims. Thankfully, they are also consistently brief.

why doesn't someone try to explain why Republican senators Gordon Smith and John Sununu are calling for Gonzales' resignation? I mean, Bush supporters post here saying nothing wrong happened (and offer no proof thereof, by the way), yet we have senators from Bush's own party calling for the AG's resignation.

"The scandal derives from the highly unusual effort to cherry-pick prosecutors for firings, in the middle of an administration, for blatantly political purposes (as well as the subsequent false statements, including by top DOJ officials to Congress, about what occurred). It is true that Bush did what Clinton did -- back in 2001, when nobody objected. What he has done now is manifestly not what Clinton did (or any President other than, perhaps, Richard Nixon), which is what accounts for the scandal."

To most of us reading the above quote, this all makes perfect sense. However, there are always going to be those select few--I believe we refer to them as authoritarians--who will read the above quote and still say, "Yeah, but Clinton did it, too... there's no difference... there's no evidence."

Explaining the significance of this case to rank and file Bush supporters will prove to be a highly sisyphean task if there ever was one. Hopefully enough people in Congress will care enough to see this through.

What if "the pleasure of the President" involves breaking the law? What then is the job of a prosecutor? Follow the wishes of the President and break the law, or go about business as usual until you are fired?

I wish I found it surprising that you claim ignorance regarding the fired US Attorneys' accusations of interference before they were fired. Like another poster said, it was under oath, and on TV. How could you have missed that aspect and then claim to be knowledgable on this subject?

Reading the same talking point, basically word-for-word, from different Bush supporters on an internet forum is not all that suspicious. In fact, it should be expected. They're not called "the christo-fascist zombie brigade" for nothing.

"Senator Domenici called one of the US Attorneys in his state. Nothing unusual about that."

Domenici called Iglesias at home! You really DON'T think that's unusual or improper? Iglesias indicated to Domenici that he would not do anything improper, so Domenici took steps leading to Iglesias' firing. I'd hardly say "nothing came of it."

I agree with that!

That "glee" and "pleasure" you speak of is purely a figment of your imagination. If you want to be accurate, "utter contempt" would be more like it. Not toward Bush necessarily, but more toward the folks who still desperately cling to his foolish vision. But I can't speak for anyone but myself in that regard.

What I REALLY find disturbing though, is that you seem more upset about some fantasy of you have of our delight in things going badly, than the actual reality of the fact that things are indeed going very, very badly.

Perhaps you should ponder that before you post here again putting words in our mouths, motives in our heads and emotions in our hearts that simply do not exist anywhere other than your own twisted imagination.