Good article. I just wish there was talk like this while the investigation was going on a year ago. If this was so "readily obtainable", why didn't the WSJ (or anyone else for that matter) talk about this then?
Or talk about the fact that she was already "outed" before all this?
It's times like this where I have to think two things: Either I'm incredibly dense, and missing something basic, or the entire world is just stupid.
"Good article. I just wish there was talk like this while the investigation was going on a year ago. If this was so "readily obtainable", why didn't the WSJ (or anyone else for that matter) talk about this then?"
The Journal actually had a piece about a year ago that I wish I still had possession of which was written by one of the former Senate staffers, a Democrat, who helped draft the Identities Act and he said much the same as this article did that the law was never intended to be used this way, and really dressed down Fitzgerald for keeping this stink bomb of an investigation going. He also made the point that if the law was always applied the way Fitzgerald is interpreting it, a friend, family member or neighbor could be jailed just for noting the employment of a friend or family member working for the CIA.
As this writer pointed out, the law was actually drafted in the 70s in response to leftist journalists (ironic that the media now loves this law when it was targetted at them) who were intentionally outting CIA agents to undermine CIA operations, thus the intent of the law focusing on INTENTIONAL efforts to undermine CIA ops, not just mentioning the name of a pencil pusher at Langley which is all Plame was. But the media has hypocritically forgotten or neglected to mention that this law was directed at their own misdeeds in the 70s to address the efforts of so many of them in an energized, anti-government, anti-military, anti-US media culture to undermine US national security.