Just one point to be very precise: we agreed that Valeris Plame was not an undercover agent for the purpose of the Intelligence Act of 1982 (which has the requirement that you have to be overseas less than 5 years ago). That does not mean that she actually was not an undercover agent as such, and that this was classified information - the leak of which would still be criminal, but under other acts.
As to the fact that there was an underlying crime, the simple fact that the CIA has pushed for the investigation, that a independent special prosecutor was appointed (after the AG recused himself, no less) and that he was able to convince the grand jury and the judge to keep this going - and that he ended up with some indictments, shows that something fishy happened - or was covered up. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
So technically, no, she was not "living overseas" but she was still operating under cover and had an identity and contacts that needed protection as she made the long switch back to stateside life.
Regardless, as Fitz said repeatedly, her status was classified, she worked in the NOC division of the CIA and very FEW people knew about it.
Why are people so drawn to bullshit? Must be the fly in us.
I of course meant to be provocative with this piece, and maybe went a little too far--particularly with the title. Obviously I'm jumping way ahead of the facts saying "Libby innocent". But I was just afraid that the site was considering this case a done deal, and wanted people to open up to the fact that it may not be. For example many posters have misunderstood what the Grand Jury process is all about--I didn't get responses to my post below on that. And I won't regurgitate my other arguments, but hopefully they've been a least understandable, even though not accepted.
His claim is here. Josh Marshall casts first doubt on the timeline here, suggesting that he must have learnt it after Wilson's July 6 column. May repeats his claim here, where he omits the detail that he was told by an ex-government official (honk honk!), and adds a detail reinforcing Marshall's hypothesis: he was told in July. But the actual proof is in the wording of his July 11 column here, where it is clear the "his wife sent him" version Bob Novak published on the 14th wasn't yet known to him.
Libby told Miller on the 8th. (While Woodward's informant, most likely Cheney, told it in middle Juny, probably the 20th.)
Meanwhile, in addition to stuff you find in the linked Josh Marshall article, this USAtoday article details that Plame's identity was not at all common knowledge earlier. And in the link I gave for May's second version of how he learnt Plame's identity, which was actually in a debate with Spencer Ackerman in letters, you find Ackerman quoting from one of the six whom Libby told, who points out that this was given as new information. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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.
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.
WC
Second, even if her affiliation with the CIA had been buzzing around Washington DC. before Libby knew, this doesn't acquit him of the charges. The guy is part of the presidential administration and has got access to material that other people don't. His statements as an official person adds credibility to a rumour or a story. That is why he now is indicted, because he has broken the law and the oath as a top official of the administration. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
