And you know this because...? You've personally talked to White House staff lately?
<The fact is, Wilson and his wife were very open about her employer, and a dem told Cliff May about Plame before Novak's column was written.
Whose fact is this? Bob Novak's? Now there's a reliable source for you, a guy with no particular reason to be somewhat biased in his recollections.
Really, nobody in this administration was out to reek revenge upon the idiotic (and treacherous) Wilsons.
At this point, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that a CIA operative has been exposed either through the malice or the sheer incomptence of administration officials and/or Bob Novak.
The CIA isn't going to simply let this one go. They can't afford to, because the excuse "oh, everybody knew that she worked for the CIA, so it's ok that her cover's been blown" ain't gonna work with any field agents.
Oh, and by the way. Please explain what either one of the Wilsons have done that could even remotely be described as 'treacherous'. Ie: of treason.
Because I am able to use my powers of deduction based on facts and reasoning.
Whose fact is this? Bob Novak's? Now there's a reliable source for you, a guy with no particular reason to be somewhat biased in his recollections.
No. As I plainly stated, that fact is Cliff May's. He stated that a Democrat told him about Plame's CIA employment status before Novak's column appeared. I heard May say it on television last week, and further, he posted it on "The Corner" over at National Review and I posted the link to it the day he reported this. So chew on that for a bit.
What matters is that a CIA operative has been exposed either through the malice or the sheer incomptence of administration officials and/or Bob Novak.
Or the Wilsons, themselves.
I don't know where you are seeing that anybody said it's "OK" that her cover's been blown. Can you point me to it?
As I pointed out before, May said the reason the dem told him was to convince him that Wilson was a patriot and not a whacked out lib trying to bring down President Bush. (The dem is clearly wrong, but that was his stated reason for "blowing" Plame's cover, per May.) So we seem to have a combination of loose-lipped Wilsons, dems trying to convince conservative journalists that Wilson meant no harm to the president, and officials answering questions when a journalist asks "Why the hell would Joe Wilson be selected to go on a trip to Niger to ask about uranium". None of those explanations points to malice on the part of the Bush adminstration, much less revenge or some such nonsense.
Oh, and by the way. Please explain what either one of the Wilsons have done that could even remotely be described as 'treacherous'. Ie: of treason.
Lying about intelligence comes to mind.