You still don't understand a very simple law. There is a procedure to properly declassify documents and it WAS NOT FOLLOWED. Another instance of this president invoking "Executive privilege" to go around THE LAW. Why did he vow to find and punish the leaker if he already knew that he had declassified the information under "EP"? Because he hadn't.

What other leak thing? We're talking about the Plame investigation and after reading libby's testimony again, it really doesn't finger Rove -- it fingers Cheney. Has Fitzgerald told Cheney that he won't be indicted, yet?

LINK -- Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks
"Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received "approval from the President through the Vice President" to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was "unique in his recollection," the court papers further said.

Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.

Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war.

In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack," a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war."

I'm not a Democrat. I'm a registered independent and a moderate. I've voted for as many republicans as I have democrats. I don't vote by ideology but by performance and competence. This administration fails miserably.

Remember that you are far to the right. Both the moderates and liberals are to the left of you. Of course, one of the problems with an extreme postition is poor perspective. I'm not surprised that you have difficulty telling them apart.

You haven't paid attention. I back a bigger military, a smarter foreign policy, and I back fiscal conservatism, among other conservative issues. It is the Bush 43 neo-con policies that I cannot back in any way. This is not Ronald Reagan's Republican party. There are democratic issues that I do not support as well such as the welfare system and the socialized medicine. I voted for Reagan and Bush 41 and even for Bush 43 in 2000 (a big mistake, I soon realized). In 2008, I'll probably be a John McCain supporter again, as I was in 2000 unless a better moderate comes along.

True independent with no party affiliation. Polarization between parties are one of the biggest problems in America today. Our elected officials are more concerned with toeing the party line than representing their constituants and they put party politics ahead of the best interests of America.

But I'm a moderate. Most of the independent parties like the Greens or the Libertarians are way off to the left or right and many are single-issue oriented. America needs a major party in the middle very badly. A moderate party would fill a big vacuum in the political middle and draw many center-leaning conservatives and liberals away from the more extreme elements of the Democrats and Republican parties.

In the meantime moderates are forced to lean left when the political pendulum swings right and lean right when the pendulum swings left. It's the only way to get things centered.