The Plame case has been all about partisan insults and that’s certainly been clouding the real issues at the heart of the investigation.
Questioning Wilson’s qualifications for receiving his CIA consulting assignment, and the agenda that was being championed relating to it, is a point that has been lost during the stretch of time that has past since the investigation first began.

Agreed, if laws were broken, then there is an accountability for delivering justice. Problem is between the media and politics involved, and the degree to which they have influenced the proceedings, a very real concern is that the investigation’s goals and direction become clouded and misdirected.

Let’s not lose sight of what should be the goal – administering justice versus what’s appearing clearer and clearer – the sharpening of political axes.

Without knowing ANYTHING that has been going on in that grand jury room and without knowing ANY of the facts, I think it’s foolish for to be slinging partisan insults.

Having said that, I’m now going to be hypocritical and sling some myself. Denise, it seems to me that looking at the context of this investigation – the fact that it all started because Plame’s husband criticized the intelligence upon which the decision was made to go to war – makes things look WORSE for the Bush Administration, not better. The article you reference seems to suggest that what they did was OK because it was getting Wilson back for basically accusing them of misleading the country into war – which they did by the way. Also, the 1917 Act, which is “obscure” and “rarely enforced,” is probably that way because not many people commit those acts very often. Just because a law is old and hasn’t required use very much does not mean it isn’t still the law.

Bottom line – If those guys broke laws, they should absolutely be held reponsible. And to compare this to Clinton? Give me a break. So, you would rather have top members of the current administration rat out members of the CIA to get revenge because the CIA member’s spouse called attention to their BS than have a President get a BJ from an intern?? At least 50% of all men and women cheat, and it’s not a crime. (yes, perjury is a crime, but let’s consider the CONTEXT of that one, shall we?)

Please, this is exactly what I mean. Stop making this into no big deal. It is a bad deal. Put this administration on trial and see if the lie, and see if they slink “away guiltily.” You assume they are completely innocent and if anything else is said, then it’s all political bull. Could be they are guilty, and if they are, it is a much worse crime than boinking some girl and lying about it. I’m not saying convict them without a trial, but quit implying that their innocent without any possibility their guilty. I know it’s innocent till proven guilty, but you would have no allegations of guilt either.

Did anyone in the White House tell outright lies or did they not remember? Hillary did not remember over 200 time and no one said boo.

We will soon see if Partick Fitzgerald is an honest man or a partisan hack. I suspect the latter.

Ding ding ding!

Why are your keys always in the last place you look?

Because once you’ve found them, it’d be stupid to keep searching for them.

Because they’ve been in your pocket the entire time.

There’s an acknowledgment that bad decisions certainly have been made, but an exploration of the context of the investigation.

Kris, I’m curious, what sources do you think provide “balanced evaluations,” as a rule?

Why are your keys always in the last place you look?