<...getting pretty dim, imo. Sound and fury, signifying nothing....much?>

So, your conclusion is based on one obscure bloggers opinion back in 2003. And what you presented was not even the bloggers entire message. She prefaces her remarks with this:

"You should keep in mind, reading this, that I have absolutely no idea about covert intelligence, and I'm pretty much just shooting my mouth off based on my very limited experience of Washington and journalism. You might as well go listen to your neighbor blather about all this; she's undoubtedly every bit as well informed as I."

And this was written before any of the facts had come out and before Sooter Libby was convicted.

Here's the complete message:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/00...

The most intelligent thing she says is this:

"If the Bush administration blew the cover of a covert operative for political gain and thereby put her life and career in jeopardy, that's rephrehensible."

Of course as a Bushie without any facts at the time she didn't admit that that could be possible. But maybe today after hearing the VP basically taking the 5th 72 times she might have a different opinion.