Let's assume, simply for the sake of argument, that both Bush and Clinton are guilty of trying to extract retribution against someone (in Bush's case, Plame, and in Clinton's case Flowers).

Is it really your position that its better to seek retribution against a person such as Flowers who was a private citizen than against a person such as Plame who was a government employee who, right or wrong, could be viewed as "disloyal."

Isn't it, in fact, worse when a govenment official tries to attack a private citizen, since that citizen has less protections than, say, a politically connected government employee?

Furthermore, still assuming that both are guilty, you've been critical of Bush for violating people's privacy in the name of national security (ie, the Patriot Act). Even if you feel that Bush's invocation of National Security is misplaced, how can you think it better that a potential president would violate privacy, not for National Security, for purely political and personal reasons?