If you are in earnest, you would do well to start with Marcy’s book “Anatomy of Deceit”. Some records of the events and debate are here and at The Next Hurrah. The FDL team that liveblogged the Libby trial earned the respect of the press for their knowledge, understanding, and accuracy.

Larry Johnson and Lawrence Wilkerson, both retired spooks, explained to a Senate Committee why what Cheney did was treason. Johnson joined the CIA in the same class as Plame. He blogs at No Quarter. He has no tolerance for trolls.

Since the US Attorney did not prosecute Armitage or Libby for “exposing” a covert CIA agent and causing great damage to the US, there is no proof that Plame was “exposed” or any damage was caused. And, the presumption must be there wasn’t actually any exposure or damage.

Plame had not been covert for some time, wasn’t likely to be again, and the front company had long been closed down. Not one CIA official ever said on the record even a general statement that Plame’s career was ruined or that any damage had been done.

So, really, it is as it appears, nothing much different than someone saying Leon Panetta works at the CIA. But, because blowing it up to be a big deal would taint Bush, it got blown up and became an ‘everybody knows..” story that really nobody knew.

If Fitzgerald had prosecuted either of the two leakers, then certainly, the burden would be on me to prove that she wasn’t a master spy going covert every day. But he didn’t, so someone needs to show me proof that Fitzgerald neglected his duty for not going after, even just arresting, someone for “exposing” a covert agent at great damage to the US.

Not one person had produced any solid evidence os such. So, I think Fitzgerald was right not to arrest anyone because no crime was actually committed and Plame’s situation was overblown to the end of making life a little more difficult for Bush.

and then later an energy analyst for the private company (founded in 1994) “Brewster Jennings & Associates,” which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations.[19]

Exactly. Why don’t you show us proof that she wasn’t covert at the time she was outed.

The fact that the CIA acknowledges that B&J “…was a front company…” shows me that it was very likely that at the time Plame was outed, still in operation but had to be terminated because of her outing.

I’m wondering why you don’t question Cheney’s convenient amnesia when he was questioned? I read all 28 pages and that was the first thing that jumped out to me.

As far as “proof” goes, common sense tells anyone that has it that there is none until one of those from the Bush administration grows a conscience…which is highly unlikely. All they have to do is say “I don’t recall…” when asked questions in which the truthful answer will show you the “proof”.

No, no, you’re right, I’m sure they kept on working undercover on nuclear proliferation issues after the front was exposed worldwide. I mean, why wouldn’t they?

You idiot.

I’m not sure I’m following your logic, so let me ask this . . .

Am I right in saying that George W. Bush in no way protected this country? After all, you can’t show me a terrorist saying “well, we were going to attack, but didn’t because of Bush and his policies”. Since there is no affirmative proof that he DID protect us, am I right to state that he didn’t?

Surely, her contacts were placed at risk by revelaing her activities as a spy? If I’m a bad guy, and I know my friend Johnny has been hanging around with Ms. Plame, and now I know she is/was a spy . . . isn’t Johnny going to accidentally fall down the stairs? A couple of times?

How on earth would we know what spy jobs she didn’t get? It’s not like there’s a list of spy jobs, who applied for them, and the reasons they were or were not chosen. You are asking for a CIA officer to say something like “yeah, we are planting agents in Bangladesh at the Acme Front Company, and we were going to use her because of her connections to Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones in the area (here are their addresses, by the way), but have now decided because of this to go with Bob Anderson as the agent for the mission.” Do you honestly expect the CIA to say something like that? Or are you demanding evidence you know wouldn’t be revealed (assuming it existed) to defend an argument? The CIA doesn’t talk about their spying activities, but the fact that they don’t talk about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it.