Will they reveal it to the rest of us?

Er, Maureen Dowd ... it probably doesn't take much to open that particular door, all meanings meant.

Joan - as a DC resident, I am not surprised. The Post (mentioned on page 15 today) has lead the way in down-playing this story, refusing to look at the fact that this was BUSINESS AS USUAL at the White House. They preferred to condescendingly doubt the legal merits of the case and insult the Wilsons repeatedly, both professionally and personally. They trumpeted the irrelevant argument that, since Armitage was "the leaker" the whole thing was a waste of time, never addressing that Libby and Rove were, indeed deliberate leakersthemselves. I hope the Democratic candidates make some noise and force this issue back into the spotlight (not holding my breath).

This is not a "story"; this is a very big deal. Did the President and/or Vice President of the United States knowingly lie to protect those who illegally outed a covert intelligence agent?

Were the same two people involved in the outing?

Isn't this even more important to understand and get to the bottom of than blowjobs in the Oval Office?

So far, media and congress are flunking, as they have flunked for years. We need to keep pushing for the truth.

Scott McClelan- who really cares what he says at this late point. If he had time to write a book and did not figure out that he was lied to until 4 years later well that says enough to me regarding him and his credibility let alone his valor.

Oprah: I do not like Oprah but seeing her marginalizsed like this is disturbing. Are you really saying she will have no impact!? Also as someone with friends in the cosmetics industry, they frequently tell me that people (Middle aged white women one of hillarys strong suppoprt groups maybe) constantly ask them for something they saw on Oprah or something Oprah said was good. No she may not be a huge surge in black votes for Obama but I think she will cause alot of middle aged white women to stop and listen. Thats her strength to his campaign as I see it and a masterful stroke on her and Obamas part. As far as Hillary and black voters shes riding off of Bill Clintons coat tails. I dont know any black people that say yes Hillarys stance on this is whatever, what I frequently get when asking is yeah I liked Bill Clinton.

I am very interested in watching Oprah's influence on the upcoming election.

I have heard and seen more than a few quotes from "men" who have stated bluntly: "I'd rather go to Hell ... get shot in the foot ... lose a $1000 bet ... ad nauseum ... than vote for Hilry CLINton." The various media personalities, types, and venues who quote these "men" have apparently forgotten that millions of we "men" were in the age when we were glad that the women's movement was causing change to occur in our country. That we have dated and married and lived with millions of highly intelligent, highly competent, highly skilled women who can think for themselves (v. the women who follow an unending procession of MEN leading the anti-abortion movement), and have been bettered by those experiences.

I do not know what powers Oprah has, but I think she clearly can sell books. She has a massive following among different demographic groups of women, and she also has lots of her own money to support get out the vote efforts specifically aimed at those women. I would contend that if Oprah campaigns for Barak, I suspect she'll campaign for Hillary. If she campaigns for Hillary, and also, if she sets her sights on getting women to vote who have NEVER registered or voted, watch out!

Each state in the general election there will be many women who will or will not vote. I would guess that Oprah can bring folks to the voting booths who have never been there and we sure as hell can use new voters for the Democrats. We've seen the Republican Party candidates turn down invitations to African-American, Hispanic-American, and Gay Americans. I would hope that all kinds of women's groups invite both Democrats and Republicans to debates on issues which are relevant for ... hello !!! ... 50% of the population.

G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney - the whole Bush administration - knowingly lied:

A: To US citizens, about 'WMD' (remember those?), when they decided to go to war against Iraq. Most US citizens, in a blue funk after 9/11, bought those lies.

B: To the US Congress when they sought funds to conduct their dirty war. Most of the members of the US Congress - including Hillary Clinton - bought those lies.

On available evidence, all leading members of the GW Bush Administration were already war criminals (long before the 'outing' of Valerie Plame). True, they had not yet been convicted.

GW Bush and Gang also tried to lie to the world outside the USA in the early days and later when they went to the UN to seek support for their war. Most of the world (except for that pitiful 'Coalition of the Willing') saw through their lies - though the world has not yet picked up the courage to to denounce them for War Criminals. I believe the only national leader who has refused to even meet with that war criminal GW Bush was Nelson Mandela.

So why are US citizens not yet rising up in disgust against the war criminals leading them? Why have they not thrown the war criminals out? Why have they not put them on trial for being war criminals?

Should US citizens be judged to be actually complicit in those war crimes of GW Bush and Gang? (Much as Germany citizens had been judged to complicit by way of their silence against the crimes of Hitler and Gang?)

-- GSC

Dear Ms. Walsh,

It seems quite clear with you choice of language that you are quite partial to Ms. Clinton. Consider your choice of language: "Nasty" O'Dowd column, "most convincing campaign to date (Clinton's)", and other comments in previous coumns barely mask your favoritism toward's Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

With all the time that you spend on television, may I kindly suggest that you take some time off the air to do your own soul-searching and remind yourself of Salon's mission.

Intellectually, you are becoming quite lazy and smug, allowing your fine journalists to do the leg work. It may not be a bad idea to read some of Lewis Lapham's work at Harper's to remind you of your role as editor and your potential.

Kind Regards,

David Wenz