Tom wrote: "I don't quite get it. The Paul Begala's AREN'T engaged in "Bush hating?" "

Tom, I know this may be difficult for you... But think about it this way: If they are right, how is it *just* bush hating?

The easier answer is that it may indeed be Bush Hating, but it also be correct. Like I said, this is a big deal if it turns out to be true. To put it in socipolitical context: At least as big of a deal than lies about who did what with whose 'pinky bits'.

Tom wrote: "Your attitude about what should be done about people who blow CIA covers raises you, as usual, above the run-of-the-mill Left, which used to deliberately "out" agents during the 1970s and were lauded for it."

I will have to take your word for it. I know of no such routine habit. I do know one case where a Turkish operative (I think) died after being outed way back in the 60's or 70's, and thats what inspired the law, but I don't remember where I read that.

Tom wrote:"To explain the difference in the two articles, it's possible Novak learned what Plame's exact job at the CIA was since he wrote the first article, but I have no evidence to prove this. As I read the excerpt, the discussion he had with the CIA was separate from the one he had with the anonymous officials, so he was not trying to blur the two."

well, that does not jive with the crossfire transcript, and that does not really make Novak a better man. Shooting someone for no reason on Saturday is not made right by finding out on Sunday that he was a bad fellow.

Tom wrote:"If Novak is such a complete administration buttmonkey, why did he write the article in the first place?"

Maybe it was Novak and not Rove who was trying to run defense for the admin. Or maybe Novak sexed up his first story to have that effect, hiding behind confidentiality. Or maybe Novak screwed up. I don't think much of Novak. I would have the same suspicions of, say, Carville if situations were reversed.

Just a thought:

Tom, you often remind me of partisan dems in the earliy days of the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. Here you are on CE Ardently defending, willing to jump in and weave up defenses for every 'little' thing that comes out. Dismissing every thing that comes up as the fault of some 'pattern' of malfeasance on the part of 'the other side' (Bush Hating = Vast Right Wing Conspiracy). But I will say that things are starting to smell now that people are scratching. The lack of WMD after we claimed to know when and where they were, The Niger 'wiggle', the lack of solid al-qaeda ties... its starting to really smell.

This Wilson affair may not have much substance, it may in fact be nothing but the antics of Mr. Novak. But I think the reason it is making a flurry is because the public perception of the Bush administrations 'distortions' (or whatever you want to call them, but they are NOT statements that conform to clearly and plainly and obviously observable reality) have, frankly, added up. People are starting to get that sinking feeling.

I asked you this question before. I'll ask it again. When? When will there be enough reality disfunctions with this administration for you to at least suspect incompetence?

Again: The difference between a jack-booted minion/gangster and a mislead believer is the insistence on accountability in leadership, and some sort of principled follow through on that insistence.

You and I have been through a lot of arguments about whether the time is or is not now. What I want to know from you is will the time ever come? right now I think you have sunk entirely into partisan rhetoric. I think you always have at least one BIG toe in that pool, but I get less and less from your posts every day. I think you could restore my faith if you gave an honest and non partisan answer to that question: when. What will make you at least be concerned for the state of our governance?

I'm not interested in more feces and rhetoric. I am interested in an answer (selfish, yes, I know). 'No! Never!' will suffice... I just want something 'on the level'.

Davin L.