"Wilsongate" not yet "Watergate":

[emad]

The UK's Times says that "White House spy scandal contains some very British ingredients":

To British readers, the hounding of Mr Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA agent and expert on weapons of mass destruction, has an eerie resemblance to the badgering of David Kelly, the Ministry of Defence expert. The ingredients of the scandal are almost identical, including at its heart the unpopular war in Iraq, a journalist defending his sources and the disclosure of the name of a loyal government servant by a member of the Government.

<snip>

To Americans, the investigation into who in the White House tried to harm Mr Wilson by exposing his wife as a spy has reawakened memories of President Nixon’s White House and efforts by his staff to cover up the burglary of the Democratic Party offices in the Watergate building 20 years ago.

<snip>

Until now, the Bush White House has been free of scandal, with the most likely source of stories about ill-judged behaviour being the close business links the Administration’s leaders have to the Texan oil industry, but so far there has been no convincing evidence of wrongdoing. Now it appears that a single act of spite against Mr Wilson may provide the key with which to unlock the Administration’s firm defences. Unlike Nixon, who did not know in advance of the Watergate burglary but was forced from office for directing attempts to cover it up, Mr Bush denied immediately any personal knowledge of the Wilson smear and expressed indignation that members of his staff would leak anything, let alone the name of an active CIA agent. However, he pointedly declined to lead an investigation himself, nor did he say how someone close to him who put an American spy’s life at risk should be punished.

To minimise the damage that such criminal behaviour might wreak on the President’s reputation, the Justice Department has so far fought off Democratic demands that the affair be investigated by a special prosecutor. But investigators are under pressure to find a culprit quickly, for to draw a blank would suggest that the inquiry has been a sham. Democrats, relishing the prospect of endless mayhem with which to embroil Mr Bush over the months leading to the presidential election next year, are already planning congressional hearings into the scandal. Mr Bush, elected on a promise to remove sleaze and spin from government, must attempt to defuse the scandal. As his approval ratings slide, one wrong move could prove his undoing. “Wilsongate” is not Watergate yet, but there is great pressure from those who oppose the President to make it seem so.

<snip>

More:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-843727,00.html

Interesting parallel but the obvious salutary lesson from the UK is that a much hyped TV spin show "The Hutton Enquiry" is pretty much a worthless sham when you consider that none of the evidence - from Tony Blair down - was delivered UNDER OATH.

[Gman]

1. It may already be the new Watergate but we just don't know yet

It took over two years for all the details of what happened after the Watergate breakin to finally come out and people went to prison. The conspiracy to out Plame already happened and we know about it. But shredding or altering of documents, a coverup conspiracy and related conversations with relevant players including Asscroft may well have already happened. We just don't know about it yet. Therefore, this could already be Watergate. We may not know all the details until sometime after the Democratic President takes office.

[ReadTomPaine]

2. Agreed, this could be much larger than Watergate...

... It's going to depend on how aggressively the Democrats are permitted to follow up and that will likely require a Democratic DOJ. It's possible for the patient under that scenario to achieve what others have been wish-listing - actual arrests and criminal charges. Just don't hold your breath for it under John Ashcroft.

[Drifter]

3. Remember Watergate was not ...

about the burglary, it was about the cover up. So far the adminstration has followed the script of the Nixon Administration. The only difference is that this corrupt administration entered the game with all of the required protections in place (knowing that something like this would happen).

Cheers
Drifter

[ReadTomPaine]

5. There's one more difference...

Nixon's people were more loyal and less incompetent.

[emad]

6. And 'Kellygate' was not about WMDs, but about the untimely

death of the WMD inspector, allegedly quoted as saying UK 'spin' -ie.blather and cover up - had been deliberately 'sexed up' by Tony Blair's PR department

[DemBones DemBones]

4. At its beginning, Watergate was just a clumsy break-in attempting

to "get something" on Democrats for political purposes.

Wilsongate, at the beginning, is about someone in the White House deliberately exposing an American CIA agent, endangering her life and the lives of her contacts as well as doing inestimable damage to American intelligence efforts -- all this for political purposes.

To diehard, hard-core Republicans, anything is fair game for political purposes.