Now to Vallely. He's a guy who would have deserved the view you have of Wilson. MediaMatters has a good account of how he changed his story multiple times. Rather than the short quote in WorldNutDaily, I recommend you read the full letter of Wilson's lawier, reproduced f.e. here, it contains tidbits on the third person the Wingnut blogosphere harps on about (the one with the least basis: the claim of a nonexistent report by John Batchelor).

To close off on these two 'witnesses', I note that both are in the pro-Bush 'media', and both are crackpots with a nice record of paranoid conspiracy theories. (They compare to Wayne Madsen on the Left.) Vallely was crazy even before - read a summary here.

Point 2) doesn't need much adding, I only link  the story and quote the part on the journalist who got the leak and thinks it was to discredit Wilson; and also the prior paragraph as it is relevant to another of your claims I left for Jérôme to deal with:

Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information. Officials said it may have been the first such report ever filed on the unauthorized disclosure of an operative's name. Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week.

Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with.

Finally for today, two quick notes on the two big reports. 'Bipartisan' might have the ring of 'objective' to an American like you, but not to an European like me - where one is sloppy, or both share similar views, there won't be objectivity. As for the Butler Report, while it was much more wide-reaching and more inquisive than the Hutton Report, it is still a pro-government report with some spin and many omissions. In particular, the Niger story - IIRC it has been shown that the Butler report mentions separate
reports of the same Niger documents as separate evidence, and omits to say that the February 1999 visit to Iraq (which I covered in the long debunking post) was not relevant to the yellowcake claim.

Post-finally, I recommend that you read through all the Ackerman parts in the May-Ackerman debate, Ackerman covers many further relevant issues, often with source and direct quote, but even if not you can search for the original source.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}