With regard to the substance of his report, it is another matter. I can't say he 'lied' about it, because there isn't that much information on the verbal reporting he did. But it does seem clear that he magnified both the scope and importance of his role. It's like the whole Cheney briefing thing - while he didn't say Cheney WAS briefed on his visit, he repeatedly says the he believes Cheney would have been briefed, since he asked the question in the first place. He presumes that his info was of sufficient gravity that 'of course' the VP would be briefed. The Agency, on the other hand, viewed it as nothing new. He also seems to think that his info put the whole African uranium thing to rest, when in fact his visit only addressed one piece of a story that had a lot of pieces. He may have determined that this one sale indicated by the documents couldn't have happened. But that was only one piece of it. So, did he inflate his own importance? Yes. Did he lie? Not that I've seen. The only real dispute of fact seems to be over the role of his wife, and that seems to be a difference of degree even among those who were in the room.
Do I think Plame was covert? Certainly at one time she was. Did she fit within the statute? If what the press is saying about her location from 98-03 is accurate, no. I've said multiple times here that I doubt Rove broke the law. But, in answer to your next question, I do think he was involved in her connection to the CIA being widely publicized. He didn't 'leak the name,' apparently, but he did leak her connection with CIA to one reporter, and confirm it for another, according to press reports.
With regard to antagonism, I'm definitely swimming against the stream here. I've been called a fraud or liar so many times on these threads that I think I'm showing great restraint.
On the post to which you replied, or more accurately didn't reply, I was responding to your characterization of his comments yesterday. I didn't see the interview. As a result of your post, I read it [more on why below]. And what I read looked like emphatic and consistent denials that he ever said Cheney sent him - not quite what you described. So I asked you if those were the comments to which you referred. If there are others, I'd like to see them. Why is that antagonistic?
I started on this topic trying to find the basis for the Rove defense that he was 'correcting a bogus story.' That could potentially explain why he - in my mind - slipped. As I've already posted, instead of saying "Oh, you already heard" to Novak, I think the only responsible thing for a gov't official to say in those circumstances is "I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about." So I looked for the bogus story from Wilson (i.e. Cheney sent me). Hard. No luck. Put out an open call here to see if I could find it. Started getting pointed to these talking points which, when you look at the source, reveal themselves to be so grossly edited that they completely change the meaning of the statements. Dishonestly so. So I started ferreting. And I've just been responding to those same points since. So, no I'm not convinced. I'm looking for something to support these claims that keep getting floated, and just keep seeing more distortion. If someone presents something where Wilson actually says what is being attributed to him by others, I'm on board.
I readily acknowledge that I'm contrarian on this issue. Blatant dishonesty in the pursuit of political ends usually does that to me - from pols of any stripe. And I have no need to, and derive no satisfaction from, participating in an echo chamber. It does me no good simply to repeat what others are saying without checking it out myself.