Here's a link to Krugman's latest column. Go read it. (Check the little box if you want to leave this page open.) I'll wait.

Okay, you're back. Now folks I don't even know quite where to start here. Krugman is right in that this is what should have happened eleven weeks ago:

An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that"those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are"the most insidious of traitors." There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic.

But it didn't, did it? I'm sorry but it takes one hell of a sleazeball to ignore this and pretend it doesn't exist and then, when under pressure, to pretend this thing is all about"leaking classified information." No, W, you nimrod, it's not about leaking of classified information although I'm sure that's what the index card by your Fruit Loops yesterday told you to repeat over and over. It's about revealing a CIA agent's name. A CIA agent, I remind you, who was working on stopping the proliferation of WMDs. You know that stuff W and the boys told us was the reason for that little $221B war we're still fighting?

That's probably the worst part of all this. This scandal reveals to you the amoral (or is it immoral?) political nature of this administration. Politics comes before everything -- even patriotism and basic human decency. They don't give a shit if the act was bordering on treason, they'll"slime and defend" until it all goes away. This latest"leaking" spin on their part is the perfect example. As Atrios said a short while ago, the problem in Bush's opinion is not leaking, this White House leaks all the time, it's the leaks he doesn't like that are the problem.

Kevin has suggested that this"leaking spin" is coming right from the top and may be what Ashcroft uses to pretend there are too many candidates so the investigation is therefore impossible. As Kevin put it:

Granted, the conceivable universe of possible leakers may number in the hundreds, but surely we have considerable reason to believe that the actual universe of leakers is limited to about a dozen senior people in the White House? I'm all for making sure that every scrap of evidence is preserved, but I hope this isn't the start of a lame effort to drag this out and then pretend that it just wasn't possible to do an exhaustive investigation.

Folks, there are about 10 people who are candidates for having done this (Scooter Libby is currently the leading candidate). It's really not that hard. Subpoena the phone logs and figure it out.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't even have to tell us exactly who they called (although it probably won't be that hard to find out), but someone should be charged with a crime for this. This is far too serious.

As I've said already, the Wilson-Plame scandal really makes any of the Clinton pseudo-scandals look like a joke.

Let's ponder this -- a extramarital consensual blowjob versus the endangering of national security through compromising the CIA's WMD proliferation program.

Which do you think is more serious?

I'll bet I know the answer.