good (or at least fair) points

Ahh, well - I try my best.

-- I realize it's just speculation, but do you have any thoughts about who the actual target might be if it's not Tamm? The NYT and reporters and editors? Recall that Alberto Gonzales openly speculated about such a prosecution, though it's very difficult to imagine -- is it not?

I really don't. Jebbie correctly points out that NYT had other sources, but Tamm appears to have acted alone, so I can't see how he could be a competent witness against them.

I also find it hard to believe DoJ could actually be considering moving against the NYT reporters and editors at this point. For one, don't they have a fairly iron-clad free press First Amendment affirmative defense? This is an aspect I think you know more about than I.

For another, the gov't has all but conceded that the program -- in its form at the time Tamm leaked -- was illegal; hence all the post facto revisions and legislation. So, even if Tamm violated federal law, seems like a tough case to make to a jury at this point. Especially a D.C. jury, where the pool is, what? 90% liberal Democrat? I think the fact they've decided to push off the decision on whether to indict Tamm to the Obama admin reveals their lack of passion about it at this point.

I'm just really uneasy with a lot of things here. I won't dismiss out of hand national security concerns. I would have preferred Tamm thought of some way to halt the illegal aspect of the program without publicizing it, such as going to Congress (I know, I know...). I thought he had the right idea by going to a former colleague who was then with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I think that person had a duty to refer the matter to the Committee (or someone on the Intelligence Committee) rather than tell Tamm to shut up.

And, to lastnamechosen's point - no, I don't know that people like Feingold and Conyers didn't first learn of the program the way we did, via the NYT. Do you know, Glenn?

And, is Frances Townsend right when she says that there was a whistle-blower complaint process that Tamm should have followed?

I'm also wary of a statement such as it's an "hysterical accusation" to say that national security was jeopardized by what Tamm did. I can just hear someone say "it's an hysterical accusation to say that our Iraq WMD intelligence was compromised just because Robert Novak revealed what Joe Wilson's wife's job was." I think both miss the point - I think the CIA had a right to protect its personnel's integrity the same way the NSA has a right to protect its secret programs. I think with hindsight we can now say the Libby prosecution was just, and perhaps DoJ should at this point just let Tamm alone, but I don't think the original impetus for either investigation was illegitimate.

Mooser - agreed with RMP, that was laugh out loud funny.

Re: Bebop-o, I miss him, too, but not at the volume-level he was at when he finally got the boot. I appreciated his perspective, too, but it simply got to be way too much.

I saw it coming, and I think Glenn was admirably patient and fair with him, basically pleading with him to cut down on posting and amply warning him that he would get banned if he didn't cool it. But bebop-o just threw it right back in Glenn's face. He seemed to post more, the more GG pleaded.

This is a great comments section, but I have a very busy job and time spent here is precious. Paging through all those extraneous comments was becoming onerous, and I think Glenn did the only thing he could.

But bebop-o just threw it right back in Glenn's face. He seemed to post more, the more GG pleaded.

Oh, man, something sure as shit went wrong. There must have been a reason for the excessive, obsessive posting. Isolophobia, perhaps? Dysmorphophobia, from his injuries? When some body's got a bad case of the Heeby-Jeebies combined with the old furore scribendi you know their chakras aren't mixing with their kishkas the way they should. And like you say, his karma hit Glenn's dogma, and he went into catatonia. Caledonia, what makes your big head so hard?!?

No, it was Centophobia, for sure! He couldn't keep away from that empty box. Suffer from it a bit, myself, as you may have noticed.

I'm sure, if I was here, I would have done something, anything, to make the situation worse. Glad I wasn't around at the time.

Thanks, Jesta, RMP, for telling me about it.

And I better trundle off to the cottlet with the Moosette.

Thanks to any and all who responded to a comment of mine. Good Night.

From the comments thread:

And I can't help but note how defiant [Congressional Democrats are] willing to be on the pettiest of issues, when it comes to attacking other Democrats. Contrast that with the last eight years of full-on meekness and subservience.

One thing you can say about Harry Reid is: at least he's reliable. Without fail, it's guaranteed he will take the wrong stand, on the wrong issue, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

He and the vast majority of his rank and file (including my own Senator Landrieu) are absolute chickensh*t.

Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here, for slights real and imagined going all the way back to the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 2000.

Surely you aren't referring to Bush v. Gore, are you?

If I remember correctly, that decision was 5-4.

To which decision are you referring?

I think the CIA had a right to protect its personnel's integrity the same way the NSA has a right to protect its secret programs. I think with hindsight we can now say the Libby prosecution was just, and perhaps DoJ should at this point just let Tamm alone, but I don't think the original impetus for either investigation was illegitimate.

If for no other reason than I have the mind of a hobgoblin, I will come out and say I thought the Libby prosecution was a travesty. What was even more painful to watch was what I consider a core constituency for open government toss it all to the curb for a momentary partisan advantage.

I would ask everyone that supported the Libby prosecution to read the following article by Carl Bernstein and ask themselves if they would have unleashed the Fitz on Carl.

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html

(also at sig)

----

Be careful what you ask for... I am drinking... I ask for more wine...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCHMPA-3Fg&feature=related

You are familiar with these terms, I trust.
There is joy in being barred from the temple.