Yes, Mary, but please remember that the Hutton inquiry, for all its apparent professionalism and its revelations about the inner workings of the U.K. government, was precisely a diversionary tactic on top of a diversionary tactic that horribly failed. Blair so readily agreed to it to forstall an official inquiry into the Iraq war itself and the basis in intelligence and politics on which it was decided, which kind of inquiry has ample precedent in the U.K. And we should remember that the U.K. has a much more dogged press than the U.S.A. and had a much stronger public opposition to the war, yet Tony Blair still hangs on.

In the event of a successful no-confidence vote against Blair or simply him losing an election, what effect would it have on the American polity? Would most Americans even notice?

Who the hell cares about most Americans? We are only to be concerned with political elites. Perhaps they would suffer a slight twinge of embarassment!

I care about most Americans.

Stick with "Plame Affair", Mary. This administration plays for keeps, and follows no rules. The only game this criminal crew knows is Calvin Ball.

There is a news story today that Plame and her husband fear for her life.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VRATDGEGQRREECRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=3560009

"...And Wilson has taken the advice of John Dean to sue the traitors..."

this is news to me... where was the suit filed, and what is the specific legal complaint?

Brian, the problem with Blair is there's no way to get rid of him. There's NO way the Labour party will sabotage their government with a loss in the Commons (thereby leading to a vote of no confidence and an election), and there'll be no general election until May 2005. The party leadership could have tabled it for the conference a week ago but with that opportunity missed we're down to him resigning as the only possibility of getting rid of him.

So, Bush'll get a free ride from the British over this - it's therefore up to the Wilsons and the CIA to make something stick (and I would have thought there'd be more coverage if a civil suit had already been filed).

Actually, I made a mistake, and spoke too soon. Wilson and his wife have retained a lawyer in order to investigate filing a suit. I hope they do this as I think John Dean's advice was very good.

On NPR, they pronounced her name 'Plah-MAY' -- or was it 'PLAAM-ay'?

At any rate, two syllables, that don't rhyme with "game."

"On NPR, they pronounced her name 'Plah-MAY' -- or was it 'PLAAM-ay'?"

Hey, the Blogosphere, or what ever, needs to decide what to call this shit. If Gringrich was a Democrat, he would call it "Treasongate!"

Heh, heh, heh... Sounds like an idea!

Seriously, I've seen at least 6 completely different names. No sense confusing people.

I think Plame Affair is probably the best name for this particular scandal. However, I suspect we will live with what ever the "official" media wishes to call it.

Okay, this is the first place I've seen anyone even talk about how her name should be pronounced. When I first saw it, my reflexes automatically went to French, and I thought "plahm". Fine. We don't have a TV, though, and I've never quite caught a radio announcer saying her name. Then I saw jokes in blog comments obviously rhyming her name with "blame". So I shrugged and tried without a lot of success to hear it like that in my head, with a broad 'a'.

Now you tell me NPR, who might even have taken the trouble to find out the correct pronunciation, is making two syllables out of it.

Damn, this is irritating! How are other broadcasters saying it??

Sounds like NPR has the name wrong. According to the WaPo today:

Little is publicly known about the career of Valerie Plame (rhymes with "name"), and she did not respond to a request for an interview made through her husband.

Since the reporter (Dana Priest) was at the Wilson home, it sounds like she might be correct.