[cyncooper]

What do you think about this talking point of a "administration official leaking for political revenge?"

For the life of me I cannot figure out WHAT political revenge a leak would accomplish?

I think the same thing you think: It's nonsense.

Clearly when Wilson revealed himself as the "former diplomat" sent to Niger to investigate claims of Iraq and yellowcake, many in DC wondered "What? Joe Wilson is rabidly anti-Bush administration...why would the CIA send him on such an errand?" So, when reporters asked this, some in the know replied with an explanation (I'm guessing one or both of the two Novak sources are CIA---if the second one isn't CIA, I'm guessing State).

It was not revenge, and some pro-Wilson types were telling it (Cliff May recounts this) in order to buttress Wilson's credibility and patriotism before party (which turned out to be b.s.).

[roses of sharon]

That is how I remember it too, so I'm not going crazy!

It seems that Wilson claimed publicly Cheney SENT him, and ignored his report, Cheney then DENIED he sent him on MTP, explaining that he asked the CIA to look into it.

THEN Novak did a story in which he was told that "no", Cheney did NOT send Wilson specifically, but that someone at the CIA probably recommended he go, ie, his wife works in that the WMD division.

If this is roughly correct all reporters that have repeated this "vengeance" story are simply not professional, and are being completely political. Even if there is a crime, that is enough, why spice it up with a revenge story.

It is blatant, and makes me feel there is NO professionalism left anymore, and NO free press we can depend on.

It is not good for our country at all.