Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won't die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:

For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush’s lies resulting in a retaliatory “outing” of his wife’s covert CIA status. Reporters continued writing that story long after it was proven false...

...Why? Are these journalists too invested in the Wilson tale to give up on it, even in the face of compelling evidence that much of it was at best unfounded, and at worst a fantasy in Wilson’s mind? Many liberals still support Wilson because his story reinforces their opposition to the war and portrays the Bush administration as the evil conspiracy so many on the left insist they see.

Because Wilson’s version of events became conventional wisdom years ago, liberals have been able to ignore inconsistent and contrary revelations with no repercussions.

This is not from the "main stream media" its from Patrick Fitzgerald.

Obstruction of justice is like throwing sand in the umpires eyes so he can't make the call. Lewis Libby obstructed the investigation making it harder to obtain the real facts about Plame & Wilson & Cheney & Rove.

And that is a crime.

But now we can turn our attention to those recently fired Republican US attorneys and it appears that a number of Republican Senators and representatives are steamed at the current Attorney General.

This is not from the "main stream media" its from Patrick Fitzgerald.

No, it was mainstream media followed by Patrick Fitzgerald. In addition, once the Libby trial ended, Fitzgerald announced no more prosecutions; yet CNN still had Joe Wilson on claiming how Bush and Cheney should be going to jail for endangering his wife. He was never questioned why he sold his story obtained with taxpayers dollars to the NY Times? He was never asked why he told Dick Armitage about his wife classification? Why his wife was in danger for being outed as a secret agent yet still able to appear in magazines with him?

Leland, your post reinforces my belief that Fitz is exactly what he claims to be -- a professional prosecutor not motivated by politics.

If Fitz wanted to run for Democratic office (by the way my Illinois governor is a doofus, even though he and I are both Democrats) to indict Cheney, Rove, Armitage would be the perfect beginning of a political career to become Illinois governor (support for Blago is slim) or run for the Illinois Senate seat if Obama becomes Veep.

But Fitz did not pull that trigger.

PS -- There are plenty of folks at Daily Kos who think Joe Wilson is a jerk.

Yet perhaps Plame (who was working on the Iranian nuclear program) and Brewster-Jennings was the real target all alone (and not Joe Wilson) since the CIA seems to be saying that Iran is further away from a viable nuclear program than some neo-cons would want us to believe.

Lewis Libby obstructed the investigation making it harder to obtain the real facts about Plame & Wilson & Cheney & Rove.

Fitzgerald already had the "real facts" about Plame and Wilson and Cheney and Rove before he ever talked to Libby. Armitage revealed her name, and it wasn't a crime.

Rand, people disagree about that point.

And if Fitz were partisan motivated, he would have indicted Cheney et. al. to better run for office in Illinois.

If Fitz wants to be another Eliott Spitzer, a "Libby only" prosecution is very weak tea.

And if Fitz were partisan motivated, he would have indicted Cheney et. al. to better run for office in Illinois.

And he would have "indicted Cheney et al" on what charge?

Rand wrote: Fitzgerald already had the "real facts" about Plame and Wilson and Cheney and Rove before he ever talked to Libby. Armitage revealed her name, and it wasn't a crime.

Bill wrote: people disagree about that point.

That's because some people refuse to accept the facts. Armitage has admitted to revealing Plame's name. Fitzgerald has admitted to knowing that before Libby's testimony. Cheney and Rove were probed by the Grand jury and found nothing illegal.

Those are all facts, Bill. Disagree with them if you want, but it only shows you to be so ideological left, that you won't accept reality.

"...but it only shows you to be so ideological left, that you won't accept reality."

Isn't that the official definition?

Heh!

People on the left say the right is so ideological they won't accept reality.

That dispute kinda looks like a stalemate to me.

PS - Libby lied to the grand jury (so said the recent jury) and that is a felony regardless of the political context.

Libby lied to the grand jury (so said the recent jury) and that is a felony regardless of the political context.

Since I haven't seen anyone dispute this, I don't know why you folks continue to erect this straw man.

Are you sure you're a lawyer?

I think everyone will have a new take on this after Plame testifies before Congress next week. I hope the questioning is as vigorous as the prosecution of Libby. Didn't Libby go before the grand jury 5 times? The bottom line is Democrats have been making hay out of the attempts by the administration to discredit Wilson's obviously false editorial. What is wrong with responding to your critics? Wilson was making a political attack and the people he was attacking were planning a response. His wife was very much a part of the story. No crime was committed before Libby's perjury. The MSM are making as big a deal about this as they can. I find Sandy Berger's crime much more serious and we hardly heard anything about it. Why?(rhetorical)