Wow, the Post is "reluctant" to return to the subject of Plame because they think too much attention has been diverted towards her? While I agree, the Posts website has referenced Plame in over 3,000 articles over the past 3 years, so I guess this "one" article will make up for that.
Yeah, the Post was in a position to know the real story, but felt constrained by the fact that Bob Woodward knew the identity of the original leaker. Instead of combating what they knew were falsehoods printed by their competitors in the MSM, they sat silent (for the most part). It seems to me they were rooting for the 'Lie' to win the Day. Hardly a jounalistic triumph on their part. An what's this bit about being "reluctant" to print a story that puts to bed once-and-for-all a 3-year national controversy? Very noble of them. /sarcasm off