But the lawyers asserted that White House documents outlining what Libby was to say in conversations with reporters did not mention Plame's name. They said this supports Libby's contention that he did not participate in a campaign to damage Wilson by disclosing Plame's CIA employment or in a coverup of the episode.
That's because there was no such campaign. Wilson lied and the Government declassifed and released documents to prove he was lying. Something several investigations have also proved.
That doesn't stop the Post.
After Wilson's return, he wrote a newspaper article in July 2003 disputing those claims and accusing the administration of twisting intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
What the Post doesn't want you to know, is that those subsequent investigations found that it was Wilson who twisted the intelligence and the Government was correct in its assement that Iraq did indeed seek uranium from Niger.
The Post goes even further and flat out lies.
The article set off an intense effort by the Bush administration to rebut the criticism by documenting its anxieties about Iraqi intentions, partly by leaking -- at the instruction of Bush and Cheney -- details from a classified, October 2002 intelligence estimate about Iraq.
That is an outright lie. Bush, who as President, has the authority to declassify anything he wants. Since Bush did just that, the details were no longer classifed and were therefore released and not leaked. This was done to prove Wilson was lying which, as I said, has been proven several times to be the case.
The lies continue.
According to the indictment, Libby told several reporters that Wilson's trip was requested by Plame. Fitzgerald, in his court filing last week, said the motive for leaking this information was to undermine Wilson's credibility by making it seem as if he "received the assignment [to visit Niger] on account of nepotism."
Plame has admitted she got Wilson the job, so there's no as if about it. Also note that no one has been charged with "leaking" Plame's employment.
An still more lies.
Although he pointedly said he was not accusing Libby of involvement in a White House conspiracy against Wilson and Plame, Fitzgerald said the evidence he had accumulated demonstrated that "multiple people" there wanted to repudiate Wilson's criticisms.
That's because there was no such conspiracy and Fitzgerald's failure to charge anyone with consppiracy proves there wasn't any.
In light of this Monday's Washington Post editorial, which backs up everything I just said, you have to wonder who is in charge at the Post.
Here is just a snippet of that editorial.
The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
And yet the Post runs a report that is demonstrably full of lies.
See the bottom of this post for links to much more details on this media contrived conspiracy. More here.
Bottom line - Joe Wilson is a liar and the Post knows it. Evidently the Post's reporter, R. Jeffrey Smith, didn't get the memo.
I emailed Mr. Smith to assertain if he had read his own paper's editorial which refuted everything he said in his report. Here's his reply exactly as recieved.
"i don't read editorials, and i don't like insults."
Apparently, he doesn't like the truth either.