Moral Clarity

I'm not sure I really understand Jacob Weisberg's contrarian take on the Plame case:
No one disputes that Bush officials negligently and stupidly revealed Valerie Plame's undercover status. But after two years of digging, no evidence has emerged that anyone who worked for Bush and talked to reporters about Plame—namely Rove or Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff—knew she was undercover. And as nasty as they might be, it's not really thinkable that they would have known. You need a pretty low opinion of people in the White House to imagine they would knowingly foster the possible assassination of CIA assets in other countries for the sake of retaliation against someone who wrote an op-ed they didn't like in the New York Times.

Evidence hasn't emerged because Patrick Fitzgerald hasn't made any charges public or revealed what evidence he may or may not have to support those charges. It would convenient for us in the commentariat if he'd been running a sloppy investigation full of grand jury leaks giving us more juicy nuggets to chew over, but the Ken Starr precedent aside that's not what prosecutors are supposed to do. If Fitzgerald's charges, when they emerge, prove to be trumped-up, overblown, or unsupported by the evidence then naturally it would make sense to start condemning him. But concluding that his case is bogus before we see his evidence because we haven't seen his evidence would be bizarre.

(TPM Cafe)
---
The apologists are going full force on this scandal! The arguments are pretty hilarious! Is there anyone in America (or the world) that does not think that this administration is capable of doing this? (Whether they somehow feel it was justified or not). I mean, c'mon, these people are capable of literally anything! They don't care about anybody or anything except money and power and have proven that they will step on literally anyone who gets in their way. Thinking that they aren't capable of doing this is just stupidly naive...