Brune claims that efforts to discredit Wilson began before Novak's column -- but -- he cites no evidence any of those efforts by the WH included information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"
Exactly. The Bush administration be fools not to point out that Wilson is not credible and was misrepresenting his trip, who knew what, what they "did" with what they "knew" (which in reality was nothing) and so on. Brune tries to equate that with the Plame name leak. Deceitful "reporting" to say the least.
No where does this article say anyone leaked Plame's name. They want to say so, this is the best they can do...
"For example, Time Magazine reported three days after Novak's column that unnamed administration officials had described Plame's relationship to Wilson and suggested she had gotten him the mission.
This is meaningless. Three days after? One day after Newsday itself reported it!
As for being "partisan", well naturally, he's a Kerry operative>
Here's the most specious Newsday statement:
The efforts to discredit Wilson came after he went public July 6 with criticism of President George W. Bush for mentioning the uranium rumor in January 2003 in his State of the Union address which helped make a case for the Iraq war.
What Uranium rumor? Bush said British intel from "Africa" explicitly avoiding that Niger memo issue. The famous "sixteen words." Wilson deftly spun around this inferring some previous State Department memo mentioned "Niger", therefore it had to be the famous fake memo. This writer knows well what he's spinning, and he's deft, avoiding the "Africa" word.