Of all the events today that are trying the soul of America why do you see this story as worthy of your audiences attention and outrage? Where is your outrage over the harm that Libby did to this country and its patriots?

Your post about the indictments, once you remove all the filler, puts Libby's evasive lies (to cover his manipulation of a free press to justify a war in which 2000 patriots have died) on equal footing with Clinton's lie about a blow job. A very convenient rationalization that no doubt helps you mentally avoid the real truth about these events.

Not to long ago on this blog the Plamegate story seemed worthy of your outrage when you railed against the MSM for even covering this story prior to the indictments. Now that real facts, from an objective source, have pointed to one of your own as being more Republican then American you seem to have become cool and lawyerly.

And that is why my ears are closed to you and your selective partisan rants. Rants whose outrage are reserved for Democrats. Why should I listen to your subject voice when I can see from your blog that they originate in a mind that is filled with a one sided irrational distaste for anything named Democrat. The same kind of half brain thinking that Libby probably used to rationalize his behavior when asked by his boss to be a team player. Cheney to Scotter - Do it for the good of our Republican country.

The fact that you and your party are deaf and dumb when it comes to the truths being revealed in this EVOLVING story answers one more question. That question being "For a modern Republican what comes first their party or their country?". You and I both know the answer to this question.

And please, save the line about how you are not really a Republican for your mirror - your non outrage over the Republican conspired Plamegate makes your conveniently applied mask of party independence seem all the more transparent.

You might note, Jim, that there are multiple authors who post here. Brian, who wrote the post, is most assuredly a Republican. Nemo and CPT 4ever may as well be (I don't know if they consider themselves Republicans or independents or something else.) I am not a Republican. It might help the coherence of your arguments if you distinguish between the different authors.

I would like to address a couple of your points, though, and to utterly ignore your vitriol and ad hominem, which are beneath comment in any case.

1. Yes, the Libby case and the Clinton case are in fact fairly equivalent. Each, assuming that Libby turns out to have done what he is accused of doing, lied in front of a grand jury. As such, each should take the legal consequences. President Clinton was disbarred and otherwise punished. Libby, should he be convicted, should be punished as well. (Libby cannot, of course, be impeached, since he resigned. Nor did Libby have the prosecutorial immunity enjoyed by the President.) I'm not sure what rationalization you see there, nor what you believe to be the "real truth about these events" that is being avoided.

2. I'm not sure I railed about the MSM covering Plamegate, and I don't recall any of the other authors doing so. (I do tend to think that it's somewhat of a tempest in a teapot; and I believe that Joe Wilson is a bald-faced liar, who attempted to beat on the administration and got taken down a peg instead.)

I do think that uncovering a covert CIA officer is serious, as is publishing details about CIA interrogation facilities (as the Washington Post recently did) or methods of moving prisoners around (as the NY Times did about half a year ago) or other releases of classified information for political purposes. I think that most of the political maneuvering in the CIA and State Department, maneuvering with the intent to bring down the President or neuter his policies, because the policy levels of CIA and State disagree with them, is far more frightening than the run-of-the-mill attempts at scandal-mongering, because it indicates that government bureaucrats feel free to attempt to manipulate the elected officials of the government. And that puts them in the role of mandarins, which does not make me particularly easy in my mind.

From the indictments handed down to date, it does not appear that a covert CIA officer was uncovered, or at least that there was sufficient evidence that any of the reporters or government officials questioned by the grand jury uncovered her. If further indictments come out, they might be worth discussing. As I see it, though, the current go-round is just the normal partisan infighting, and I see no particular reason to get involved, let alone into any kind of high dudgeon. (You'll note I didn't write about Sandy Berger's taking and destruction of classified documents, either, though I find that at least as distasteful as anything that appears to have happened in the Plame case.)

3. You are welcome to read or not read, to pay attention or not pay attention.

Really, the rest of your "points" are not worth addressing, so I'll pass on them.

I also find your lack of outrage at blatant racism, and your corresponding efforts to change the subject, both interesting and telling.

What is the REAL, but unstated, reason Democrats hate Michael Steele enough to engage in a racist, hate campaign against him?

FEAR and a desperate need to distract the press and the public from focusing on how the Democrats have sold Maryland Blacks down the river.

Michael Steele is a native of, and lives in, Prince George's County, Maryland.

EVERY county and state level elected official in Prince George's County is a Democrat.

The majority of them are Black.

Half of the non-Black minority are Hispanic.

Top school adminsitrators are predominately Black.

If you believe the Democrat's rhetoric, you would expect Prince George's County to be a paradise, especially for "minorities."

You would be wrong.

Prince George's County's rapidly increasing murder rate is second highest in Maryland and the highest in the Washington, DC, suburbs.

Prince George's County's schools are the second worst in Maryland and the worst in the Washington, DC, suburbs. The Black school chief recently resigned while being investigated by the FBI; one of his

top assistants ($130,000 per year) has just been convicted on federal drug laundering charges and has been indicted on witness tampering charges.

Prince George's County has more car thefts and violent carjackings than all the rest of Maryland and the DC suburbs put together.

Attacking Michael Steele is just part of the Democrats scheme to distract the public and the press from their ongoing abysmal failure to either protect or educate the people of Prince George's County.

Unfortunately, the GOP will not field, much less effectively support, respectable alternatives to the failing Prince George's County Democrats.

Wow, Jim, where to start?

First, thank you for completely ignoring my post and turning it into something you would rather discuss. I would think you might try posting your thoughts on this subject on your own blog as an entry, rather than hijack this topic, but whatever.

Why did I choose to cover this story, as opposed to something else, ie Scooter Libby? I find this story interesting. I think the hypocrisy shown on race by these Maryland Democrats is worth noting. This kind of behavior is poisonous to race relations in America, and is highly insulting to blacks who honestly come to different ideological conclusions on political issues. I have not seen this story getting a lot of attention elsewhere, so I thought I would point it out. Conversely, the Libby story is everywhere. I'm sorry you came here looking for me to post about it; I really don't have much to say about it. Try DailyKos or Powerline or one of the many others; I'm sure they're all over it. But don't expect me to run what I post about by you.

As for my outrage over the harm Libby did to the country and its patriots, I'm not sure what harm you're talking about. But, as to my feelings on the subject, if Libby knowingly lied (as opposed to an honest mistake in recollection) in his grand jury testimony, he should be punished appropriately. I don't think people should get away with lying under oath.

I have made no post about the indictments so far; that was Jeff's post. FYI, Libby's alleged 'lies' weren't "to cover his manipulation of a free press to justify a war". It would help if you got your facts straight and, perhaps, listened to Patrick Fitzgerald, who stated this indictment had nothing to do with the war or its justifications.

When I discussed this story before, my outrage was directed at how the MSM was covering the story at the time, not that they were covering it. I stress that because you didn't get it back then either. At the time, the media was obsessing over Karl Rove (no one was even talking about Scooter LIbby) talking to Matthew Cooper and that he should be fired or resign or whatever other hyperventilation the MSM was involved in. I saw no evidence that Rove "outed" a covert agent, which, mind you, is what this investigation was all about. Evidently Mr. Fitzgerald saw no evidence that Rove "outed" a covert agent either, since he wasn't indicted for it. It's important to note that Mr. Libby was not indicted for that charge either. Those are the real facts, from an objective source, as they relate to the point of my earlier post that you reference.

Jim, apparently your ears aren't closed to my rants, or you wouldn't have commented. Or maybe they were closed, since all of this is completely off topic to the post I made. As to why you should listen to me, that would be for you to decide. I don't compel you to read my posts or comment, but I thank you nonetheless for doing so. But let me assure you, that my distaste for all things Democrat (it's really not all, but I guess it's close enough not to quibble) is actually quite rational and much thought about. This, however, is my own personal opinion based on my knowledge of history coupled with how I believe things should be. Feel free to disagree.

As to being selective in my rants, I freely admit I find much more to rant about regarding Democrats. I disagree with them more. However, I don't mind ranting about Republicans either. I remember having chastised Rick Santorum on this blog before. I don't blog as much as I would like, or I would have had a scathing post about Tom DeLay's assertion of there being no more fat to cut out of the budget, thanks to a decade of GOP control. That was ludicrous and still gets my blood boiling. However, by the time I got around to blogging the story, it was several days later, and many others had already touched upon it, so I decided to skip it. I tend not to blog about something when those conditions occur. If you want me to rant about the GOP, just start talking about their response to efforts to cut pork to pay for hurricane relief. That's an area where I find major fault with the Republican party. However, it is being well covered by many already saying much the same thing.

You may not want to hear it, but I will state it anyway: I am not really a Republican (Jeff, that really stung; I thought you knew me better than that.) I agree with them on many things, but there are many things I disagree with them about as well (sadly, it seems more and more all the time). However, I am most assuredly not a Democrat, so in our two party system you'll see me supporting the GOP almost all of the time. In truth, I consider myself a libertarian conservative; that is, a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, but with enough major disagreements to not actually be a libertarian. Frankly, I don't see the Republican party as my true home (it used to be; I used to consider myself a strong Republican). However, I have not seen a viable alternative yet, and as long as libertarians continue to have an isolationist bent regarding the war on terror, I don't expect to see one soon.

If Scooter Libby lied under oath, I'm outraged by it. If anyone had knowingly blown a CIA agent's cover, for any reason, including revenge for criticism, I would be outraged (in fact, that would be like obtaining and in some cases leaking secret FBI files of administration critics, which I was ouraged about in the past; were you?). The latter, at least as we know it now, is nothing but a feverish dream of the moonbats. Sorry if I can't muster any outrage for that. Again, feel free to peruse Kos or DU; they'll have it in spades.

Diane, you bring up a great point. I wonder how the Democrats are running races in Maryland. Are they bemoaning how bad things are for Maryland's blacks, contradicting their claims of how well Democrat policies work for African-Americans? I guess they would blame any problems on Gov. Ehrlich, but can he have created such major problems in his two years as governor, as opposed to the Democrats who have run that state for longer than I've been alive before Ehrlich was elected?

Democrats have dominated that state's political scene. Democrat policies are best for blacks. Thus, things should be going real well for Maryland's black population. Are they?

Brian, sorry that stung; I didn't realize it would. While I have never seen you as a party-line "Republicans are always right" kind of guy, I figured you identified pretty closely with the party politically. As you note, you used to. I guess I just hadn't caught up. Sorry about that.

For Brian,

"First, thank you for completely ignoring my post and turning it into something you would rather discuss."

To be honest with you Brian paying attention to this selective partisan post is not a constructive use of my time. The point of your story is not to facilitate discussion as much as it is intended to throw rocks at the other party that you happen to despise (Google at http://blogsearch.google.com/ using the search terms Caerdoria and Brian)

"Why did I choose to cover this story, as opposed to something else, ie Scooter Libby? I find this story interesting. I think the hypocrisy shown on race by these Maryland Democrats is worth noting."

It is convenient then that the hypocrisy was committed by the party (the team) that is not your own. Because it would certainly be difficult for a man to reach deep inside and criticize his own team. (Warning: Sarcasm to follow) But we both know that the dominant party in this country - the one that controls all the branches or our government - is devoid of any hypocrisy about which you could write. No, your energy is better spent pointing out the deficiencies of a few members of the out of power party. God knows we will get this American ship on the right course once we fully castigate the entire Democratic party for the actions a few.

"Jim, apparently your ears aren't closed to my rants, or you wouldn't have commented."

Brian, what my ears are closed to is taking your words seriously. Your views are biased by a personal perspective. A team mentality that prevents you from being objective.

"But let me assure you, that my distaste for all things Democrat (it's really not all, but I guess it's close enough not to quibble) is actually quite rational and much thought about."

If your distaste has indeed been acquired through much thought then why don't you put those rational assertions in print so that a real discussion can occur. Why don't you discuss party positions instead of making generalizations about an entire party because of a few extremists. Every party has members who go beyond the responsible - does that mean they represent the position of the majority? You know the answer to this as well as I do. Constructive posts would be directed at the positions of the majority within a party. And right now the Republican majority are the ones who are enabling their leadership to move this country in a direction with which I do not agree. Their actions will be the reasons for my words because, unfortunately, their actions affect me.

"I will state it anyway: I am not really a Republican ... I am most assuredly not a Democrat, so in our two party system you'll see me supporting the GOP almost all of the time."

Protest the label as strongly as you want but in my mind supporting a party "almost all of the time" makes you a member of that party - especially since you probably give them your vote almost all of the time.

"In truth, I consider myself a libertarian conservative; that is, a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, but with enough major disagreements to not actually be a libertarian. Frankly, I don't see the Republican party as my true home (it used to be; I used to consider myself a strong Republican)."

Then why don't you - through your posts - try to make the Republican party more like the home you think it should be. I say this because that is my intention. I use to be part of that party before they sold their ideological soul to obtain a majority. They are, after all, the party in power - the party that impacts the lives of Americans directly with their legislation and spending. It is my view that it is enablers like you - those who vote, however reluctantly, for Republicans - that has kept the leadership from coming to terms with their numerous missteps. This team mentality is great for sporting events but it is irresponsible when the outcome affects the real lives of people. My suggestion to you would be to direct your posting advice at the Republican crew. After all they are the ones who are completely in charge of this American ship. Save your advice for the out of power Democrat passengers until that time when they are in a position to really affect your life - that is what I am doing now and will do when the next crew takes over.

I Googled myself like you requested. What do you know, it's been three months and about 23 posts ago that I last bothered to even mention the Democrats.

Nowhere in this post did I "fully castigate the entire Democratic party for the actions a few" or was I "making generalizations about an entire party because of a few extremists." This post refered only to black Democrats in Maryland.

So, my "views are biased by a personal perspective." Wow, imagine that! You caught me Jim! Congratulations!

My support of a party is my vote. I have not contributed money to a party or a candidate before. In a two party race, I cast my vote for the Republican almost all of the time. But, it may interest you to know that here in Texas, which has a (comparatively) strong Libertarian party, I voted for every Libertarian candidate running for a judgeship on my ballot, and there were many. So, how would you like to pidgeon-hole me now? What party am I a member of?

As for the rest of your comment, I will reiterate: I will not run my decisions of what to post about by you first. I don't require your approval Jim.

Brian,

"I will not run my decisions of what to post about by you first"

Yes Brian, you are free to post on any story you wish - and I am free to add my view and opinion concerning those posts. One can be from Texas, a politically inactive state (I am sure there is nothing politically worth knowing about going on there), and go all the way to Maryland to find an important story about overtly partisan black Democrats. And I agree, as do you, that one can have obvious subjective "views that are biased by a personal perspective". Although, unlike your obvious acceptance of this characteristic by your comment:

"Wow, imagine that! You caught me Jim! Congratulations!"

I attempt to find the truth with objectivity.

However, where I am sure we will disagree is with the conclusion I come to when I take the above observations together. What I see is a person who exhibits the same intrinsic characteristics as the cookie throwing people in his post - overtly partisan and biased. In their case they chose to exhibit this behavior by throwing Oreo's in your case you accomplished it by throwing a post. In the end the results are the same - nothing really important has been accomplished because in both instances people failed to reach beyond their subjective and biased perspecitves.

Jim, if what you are saying is, at it appears, that deploring bad behavior is as bad or worse than the behavior being deplored, then your moral sense is in a sad state indeed.