With the exception of my occasional lapses into ruling Iraq, I don't often go into politics or political discussions around here. Most of the time, I leave that to folks who are much better at those kinds of arguments. Sure, I could say plenty about how I feel that Bush is not a good president -- more importantly, a good leader -- but again, you've either already heard it, or could read about it better elsewhere.

Until this weekend.

When I heard that Karl Rove was possibly the source of the CIA leak (something that apparently was conjectured previously that I was unaware of), I was flabbergasted. THE Karl Rove. The "architect" of the Bush re-election victory. Possibly guilty of high treason -- a funny term considering that the Karl Rove himself just described the liberal approach to national security as being weak and possibly even treasonous. Let's keep that in mind: a "liberal approach" is possibly treasonous. In other words, a dissenting opinion to the ones of those in charge is possibly treasonous.

John Rogers has a good bit of frothing at the mouth over this insanity.

Then to have it come out, from Rove's own lawyer, that he was in fact the source. I expect heads to roll. I expect the media to explode.

This morning, it wasn't even the top headline.

WHAT?

I'm beside myself with anger and confusion that this is where we've come to. My only solace today was in reading the amazing battering of the White House Press Secretary. Read the transcript in its gory, glorious detail.

What's funny is that when I write about being the elected Prime Minister of Iraq -- now, don't be shocked, people -- I'm joking. Somehow the same amount of levity doesn't seem to apply when the speaker is the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the subject is the naming of an undercover CIA agent, done apparently out of political retaliation.

Actually, that's not funny at all. Not in the very least bit.