Just want to make sure I'm clear on this.

Letter writer posts that someone should be shot: letter is deleted.

Debra Dickerson writes, despite her having ignored the case, that OJ should kill himself: published as main article.

Please stop publishing Dickerson and Paglia. Neither is worth the electrons. I don't read either any more and am only reading this letters page to see how many readers feel as I do about Paglia. Evidently, most! I'm a premium subscriber and fortunately, you still publish Conason, Greenwald, Kaufman, Traister and a few others. If it were all like Paglia and Dickerson, I'd bail entirely. I don't want to read hateful, right wingers pretending to be liberals. The constant repetition of "No really, I'm a liberal" from Paglia is nausiating.

Elephantman,

You carry water well. It is possible for a leak to come from more than one source, just as it is possible for it to lead to more than one recipient. In addition, even had Armitage leaked her identity, it is still criminal to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

To use a lesser example, if someone told Robert Novak your credit card number and verification information, does that mean that it is then fine for me to go tell lots of other people with the express purpose of destroying your credit rating?

Libby was tried and convicted for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Why weren't he and others tried for outing Plame? Perhaps the prosecutor didn't think he had enough court-worthy evidence. I don't know the inner workings there and neither do you.

BTW, so glad to see you acknowledge that the $700 million witch hunt of Clinton was a waste of money and time.

We should all presume that, since the leak of Plame's name was never a chargeable crime

You presume incorrectly and we should most definately not "all" presume that. The leak of Plame's name was indeed a crime, no matter how many times it was done and no matter who leaked it. She was an undercover CIA operative and "outing" any such agent is a crime. That the White House and other criminals involved successfully covered it up does not mean it isn't a crime, it means they (so far at least) have gotten away with it.

Your attempt at repurposing my analogy fails in that no-one was ever authorized to give out her identity. Heck, with your analogy, Plame herself would have had to ok the release of her name. My anaology stands and is correct.

Remember, Never presume as it makes a "pre" out of "su" and "me".

First, thanks for properly describing your post. Nonsense indeed!

Libby's lies provided cover and obfuscation about who leaked what to whom when. This is the type of information that would be needed to determine who to prosecute in the Plame affair. Fitzgerald was investigating the leak of Plame's identity, Libby obstructed that and lied to him about it, thus he was tried and conviced for that.

Fitzgerald does seem to have failed in the investigation of who leaked Plame's identity, at least for now. That was at least in part, Libby's fault. Again, this is why Libby was tried and convicted.

It would all be laughable if it weren't so serious in terms of Mr. Libby's future, and in terms of the deadly serious military operations in Iraq.

Mr. Libby has made his bed, now he can lie in it in prison. Other than it being part of the series of lies that led to the war in the first place, what does it have to do with the military operations in Iraq?

Were I on the prosecution team, I'm sure I could tell you. It likely managed to prevent a clear enough picture to gain convictions in the opinion of Fitzgerald. Libby lied to the Grand Jury repeatedly in a case involving crimes that could approach or include treason. This is Obstruction of Justice. The questioning was warranted as it was directly tied to the investigation at hand. It is also possible that others lied to the grand jury and their lies in conjunction with Libby's were what prevented further prosections. Why only Libby being tried and convicted? Maybe he was the only one sloppy enough to leave a clear enough trail for the trial to go forward.

You still haven't mentioned what his eventual incarceration has to do with the war in Iraq, or did you just throw that in there as an attempt to forestall criticism of your other points?

This is one of the sillier proposals I've seen. As you rightly stated, it is essentially a marketing scheme designed to appeal to Green consumers. Even if enforceable, it is too vague to make much sense. For example, I own a 98 Nissan Pathfinder, however I rarely drive it. It is a secondary vehicle that I use if I need to transport large items or large numbers of objects or if towing is needed. My main car, the one I use on a regular basis, is an 06 Toyota Prius. Do I have to pay to use the site or not? Do I only pay when I'm using the SUV that weekend?

In addition, with the amount of competition out there, this can only work as a marketing plan that might net him a few extra $ from those that feel guilty.

No, Joe. A year from now we'll still be saying Plame was shafted and that Libby is in prison becuase he obstructed the investigation into her outing.

And the "coincidence" that Plame worked for the CIA and her husband went on the junket? It isn't a "coincidence", but not in the way that you think. She was chosen by the Bushies to be outed because her husband was the one that went on the junket. You make two classic mistakes often made by people who don't actually bother to think for themselves.

1) You mistake cause for effect and effect for cause

2) You don't understand that correlation is not causation