And the factual points I've made have never been "the story" in the media as they ought to have been.
To this day as the Times,WaPo, TIME, Newsweek, etc, report it, they say with indignation that the WH was trying to undermine Wilson without pointing out Wilson's credibility by all that is sane and rational was in tatters long long ago.
The tack they take is the WH had no right to dispute the lies Wilson was spreading (with the help of his rogue cohorts).
I have the correct perspective.
I'll go ahead and add that your post earlier about "our side" muddying the waters by presenting facts was so much nonsense.
The reason why the false story lives on, though, is that our side keeps bringing up stuff that is neither here nor there, and is at least arguably false. We spend our time arguing that she was not covert, for example, which is not true. She's not covert now, but she was classified as covert when she was based in foreign embassies years ago. Why argue about such things when you can simply throw the knockout punch:
Rove never told anyone she was covert.
There is no real argument about that. Even Cooper does not claim that he did.